So, I gather, you don't see Obama as creating hatred and divisiveness?

"while specifically ignoring the responsibility of Islam in the murder of Marines that has just occurred, and of the murder of thousands others that have been occurring recently"
He's called ISIS a "brutal vicious death cult". At some point carrying on about criminals, esp crimes committed specifically to seek attention, is counterproductive.

The way I see it, violent extremists want to create hatred and divisiveness. People who want the US president to respond to the extremists in a way that aggrandizes them also apparently want to create hatred and divisiveness. The rest of us successfully live and work with people of all backgrounds and want nothing of little people who want to turn us against one another for their own gain.

Hahahahahaha.

So, back to the original issue. Obama made his speech regarding Islam, while specifically ignoring the responsibility of Islam in the murder of Marines that has just occurred, and of the murder of thousands others that have been occurring recently. He did not promote the embrace of diversity, he promoted, as always, the divisiveness that he creates. If you applaud pluralism, based on performance, not on belonging to the social group of the day, than how can you possibly applaud the hatred and divisiveness that he is creating?

"When the criteria is performance, it really does not matter if the performer is green or purple."
True
"But, if most of the top performers happen to be purple, the solution is for the greens to improve themselves, not for the purples to dumb themselves down or to simply promote the greens when they don't deserve it."
I would say that group disparity not actual a problem in need of a solution. The real problem is defining identity by a group.

"You seem to be bundling and switching unrelated items"
Yes. This has almost nothing at all to do with my original claim, which was I applaud pluralism.

You seem to be bundling and switching unrelated items. When the criteria is performance, it really does not matter if the performer is green or purple. But, if most of the top performers happen to be purple, the solution is for the greens to improve themselves, not for the purples to dumb themselves down or to simply promote the greens when they don't deserve it. What is called "diversity" nowadays is in fact a new name for affirmative action, only not it is not limited to race but to every perversion that can be thought of. Obviously, with such a long list of priorities, performance is no where to be found. The progressives (socialists) have always used Orwellian techniques of renaming their agenda to hide the bankrupted items. This is what "diversity" is. It is not simply people accepting each other and working together.

"It does when the diversity/multiculturalism results in balkanization instead of the melting pot our founders intended. Which is exactly what we get today.
Instead of urging cultures to assimilate into one they are urged to remain separate."
I certainly wouldn't urge people to be separate, but I don't think people need urging to come together, esp with today's technology.

"Yes, it does, when the emphasis is on diversity instead of excellence."
This may be a fundamental difference. All the time I see people of different backgrounds come together and do excellent things. I see it happen time and again.

"That is the whole point of affirmative action - people get promoted based on other characteristics than performance."
AA has nothing to do with this, but I don't think that was every the point of AA. The idea was people work with people who they know, and those social networks are (the idea goes) racially segregated. So AA was supposed to force people outside their normal network to give minority groups opportunities. I'm generally against such force even if it were a real problem, but in today's world of electronic networking I don't even think the problem exists.

This seems like a discussion for 50 years ago. "Can diverse groups work together and create excellence? Do we need AA to do that?" Now, 50 years later, the answers are obvious: YES! Diverse groups without AA create amazing things people couldn't have dreamt of 50 years ago.

It does when the diversity/multiculturalism results in balkanization instead of the melting pot our founders intended. Which is exactly what we get today.

Instead of urging cultures to assimilate into one they are urged to remain separate.

Remember when the shooter at Ft. Hood stood up and yelled "Allahu Akbar" and started blasting in a crowded room? A couple days later I was listening to Michael Savage who had a clip of a very high-ranking government official saying, "I don't want to call this terrorism. I don't want to go there." Savage yelled, "Oh really !? Where do you want to go sir?!" Really had me laughing...

That is funny...

FYI-That's pronounced Chat-a-noo-ga NOT Chat-Nooga! BTW!

I'm sharing this-very funny

For what it's worth, I think he is honestly but naively trying to give Muslims in our country an opportunity to distance themselves from the jihadists.

But I don't hear any of them doing it. Just crickets chirping.

Nutz you're notz; smarts u gotz.

you may be right

I disagree with you that pluralism is good. At least what is meant by pluralism today. America was founded on diverse people coming to the country and striving for material wealth (which is only possible through personal freedom and personal achievement). The goal has always been the same - through any legal and moral means, to achieve the most in terms of wealth. The current version of "pluralism" throws that away; instead, it is affirmative action applied to every fringe group possible. The achievement, the performance, the quality that were required in the past are no longer relevant. One is advanced based on their class characteristics. Likewise, one is punished based on their class characteristics. The Soviet Union and Mao's China have already tried those methods, with countless millions murdered as a result. Yet, you want the same?

all of them

I should argue that with you, but.....
Although, which devil? Beelzebub, Baphomet, Satan, Pazuzu? I kinda like Baphomet because he has a male goat's head, but a human woman's breasts. Pretty disgusting, huh? So is he.

Yes, it does, when the emphasis is on diversity instead of excellence. That is the whole point of affirmative action - people get promoted based on other characteristics than performance. Would you rather trust a black transgender doctor who got into school and graduated through affirmative action, or one that learned his stuff?

How about a new, separate thread on diversity and multi-culturalism? :)

he is worse than a devil, he IS a muslim.

"Either the driving force in the society will be diversity and multi-culturalism, or it will be excellence."
This is a false choice. Having diverse cultures does not affect the pursuit of excellence.

I am surprised that an explanation is required. Very well. One cannot serve multiple gods. Either the driving force in the society will be diversity and multi-culturalism, or it will be excellence. It can't be both. Clearly, our society has chosen to evenly spread mediocrity and failure instead of concentrating on performance and excellence.

People who condemn the comments in favor of pluralism without explaining why sound like they're on the side of militant extremists and their supporters.