Some time ago, I put in a profile somewhere that “diversity of thought is what matters.” It’s probably still out there. If I find it, I’ll be changing it.

The reason? Well, I don’t think I actually believe in “diversity of thought.”

I started thinking about this after reading a comment on The post-Christian dilemma from Vox Day.

Now, yes: if there’s a problem I’m facing, getting somebody else’s perspective is often useful. At times, it’s even essential. Farming an idea to a handful of people can sometimes be fruitful.

But there is a reason that “too many cooks spoil the broth” is an expression.

Also, it’s rarely the case that the solution is something entirely novel. Usually, it’s something I overlooked, if not some wisdom I conveniently forgot.

Based on how I actually live my life, and how it appears others live theirs, nobody actually believes in “diversity of thought.”

The reason is this: very little is actually new. When something new does emerge, failure is the rule.

We rely on alignment and conformity of thought to go about our daily lives.

Furthermore, the expression, “diversity of thought,” is never an individual endeavor. You could call that “free thinking,” though that has its drawbacks (for one, not everybody can do it successfully or responsibly). No, “diversity of thought” is all about group and committee.

The other thing about “diversity of thought” that concerns me is just thinking about rhetoric. I’m no expert in the area, but rhetoric is about convincing people through emotional appeal.

SJWs love to use “anti-diversity” as a rhetorical attack against whites, particularly white males. They’re calling you “racist” or “sexist” without using those words.

Putting “diversity of thought” out there as a shield or, God help you, a retort against such an attack has got to be a rhetorical fail. Why?

The clearest test is if SJWs are offended by it. “They have to go back,” is very effective. Perhaps I’ve just missed it, but do SJWs even care about “diversity of thought”?

You can also just look at the expression itself. “Diversity of thought” is complex and wordy in a way that “They have to go back” is not. There’s an appeal to dialectic in the former that is going to go right over most people’s heads.

Another problem is that rhetoric need not be entirely true, but it must contain a kernel of truth at its heart. “They have to go back” doesn’t mean we need to expel every foreigner. Foreign guests who remain friendly and respectful of our culture are usually fine. But the vast majority of foreigners who, by their numbers, are changing our culture, need to not be here.

However, as I discussed above, “diversity of thought” doesn’t contain enough truth to be effective. The best you can come up with is that you ought to have some tolerance for new thoughts, but those new thoughts must stand up to scrutiny. Or, it is helpful to have a few different perspectives, as long as they are relevant.