I love the way people support moral relativism on other forms of so-called ‘diversity,’ (as diversity is undoubtedly a form of moral relativism/nihilism), and then suddenly get all universalistic when the topic of ‘ideological diversity’ is mentioned.
As if one can simultaneously hold that castrating gay people is bad, or that slavery is a great evil, and that religious and cultural diversity are real. Any true moral relativist ought to celebrating slavery and the persecution of gay people.
Because after all, all things being equal, differences are a good thing, not a bad thing; and the burden of proof should always be on the person criticizing something bad, and not the person affirming its badness.
Diversity is a term highly loaded with positive (instead of neutral or ambivalent) connotations, and thus its proponents are opposed to taking things on a case by case basis; otherwise, why use a positive term for an ambivalent phenomenon (i.e. ‘differences,’ why are neither positive nor negative in themselves?
I will never be able to understand how people indiscriminately lobby for diversity, for the celebration of differences in general, then get upset by pedophile marriage, FGM and rape gangs. Surely, if difference is good in general, rather than merely good in some cases (thus requiring a case-by-base approach), diversitarians should be celebrating these things?
Makes you wonder. People can’t follow a dogmatic form of moral relativism, and then start making moral and cultural universalist exceptions whenever it suits them.