网帖翻译

Matthew Bates
It’s not the diversity that they fear, it’s the hypocrisy they hate.
Thanks to pro-diversity programs like Affirmative Action, two generations of white Americans have a permanent excuse if they fail to advance in their careers: they were passed over for hiring or promotions because they were white. Whether or not that’s true doesn’t matter. Some white people DO get passed over because of their race, and that makes a convenient excuse for any white person who feels “cheated” by the system somehow.
Here’s just one recent story about white employees at a company being passed over for promotions because of their race. I, as a white man, have been hearing other white men complain about this my entire adult life. It feels like a lot of white guys who are struggling financially blame their lack of career advancement on their whiteness in an era when companies actively seek out non-white, non-male employees in the name of diversity.
I like to compare it to a game of musical chairs. It’s like only white men were allowed to play for a long time, and then the music stopped, and some of them got a seat. But a lot of other white guys were left standing. Then, when the music started again, the people who had seats didn’t stand up, and the white guys who were already standing weren’t allowed to play anymore, in the name of “fairness.” So the only people left playing were the white guys who already had their seats, and the non-white, non-guys who were allowed to circle around, waiting for an opening. The white guys who didn’t already have a seat were shut out from playing anymore.
And that’s all they want… not to be the only ones playing still, but to be allowed to play on an even playing field; to not be put at an unfair disadvantage, and be told that it was for “fairness” and “diversity’s sake.” They, like everyone else, just wanted to be treated as individuals, not members of a group which they were born into.
Convincing the millions of white guys who are struggling financially that they’re somehow “privileged” is a hard sell, especially when your examples of “privileged white guys” are only men who happen to look like them, but are leading very, very different lifestyles.

他们不是害怕多样性，而是他们讨厌虚伪。
由于平权行动等支持多样性的计划，两代美国白人如果在事业上得不到发展，就有了一个永久的借口：因为他们是白人，所以在招聘或晋升时被拒绝。这是否是真的并不重要。一些白人确实因为他们的种族而被拒之门外，这为任何感到被体系"欺骗"了的白人提供了一个方便的借口。
这是最近一个关于一家公司的白人员工因为他们的种族而被拒绝晋升的故事（链接）。 我，作为一个白人，在整个成年生活中一直听到其他白人男子抱怨这个问题。感觉很多在经济上挣扎的白人将他们事业上的不成功归咎于他们的白人身份，而在这个时代，公司以多元化的名义积极寻找非白人、非男性员工。
我喜欢把它比作一个音乐椅（抢椅子）游戏。就像只有白人男子被允许玩很长时间，然后音乐停止，他们中的一些人得到了一个座位。但其他很多白人却被留下来站着。然后，当音乐再次开始时，有座位的人没有站起来，而已经站着的白人也不允许再玩了，以"公平"的名义。因此，只剩下已经有座位的白人还能再玩，而那些非白人、非贵族的人被允许继续围在一起，等待空位。那些还没有座位的白人被拒之门外，不能再玩了。
这就是他们想要的......不是说要只有他们在玩，而是希望允许他们在一个公平的环境中玩；不被置于不公平的劣势，并被告知这是为了"公平"和"多样性"的缘故。他们和其他人一样，只是想被当作一个单独的个体来对待，而不是他们生来就属于的群体的成员。
说服数百万在经济上挣扎的白人，让他们相信他们在某种程度上有"特权"是很难的，特别是当所谓的"有特权的白人"的例子只是那些碰巧“看起来”长得像他们的男人，但其实他们的生活方式却非常非常不同。

From this side of the aisle, it looks like a blatant double standard. “In order to promote diversity and correct the racism and sexism of the past, we are going to prioritize hiring and promoting non-white, non-male people. We’re going to fight racism and sexism with racism and sexism.”
Also, popular culture seems to only think about “diversity” in terms of race and gender… the things that are usually pretty obvious to the eye. But conservatives often decry the lack of diversity of political ideologies among certain groups who pat themselves on their back for their diversity. College professors and mainstream media editorial boards are the usual suspects for conservatives when it comes to this.
Here is the editorial board of the New York Times:
That’s a nice, diverse-looking group of people. Not bad for the “newspaper of record” for the United States.
Except right-wingers are underrepresented on the board. Is it really “diverse” if all of the differences are at the superficial level? If most of them think more or less the same way?
I’m going to make a bold prediction here that that “diverse” group of people at the New York Times is, after thinking long and hard about the candidates, going to endorse whichever Democrat is running for president in 2024, 2028, 2032, etc…
It’s the same for college professors. You can find a diverse-looking group of professors at most colleges now, but, chances are, the vast majority of them will lean to the left politically.
It is just as hypocritical for a group to pride itself on its “diversity” when most of the members of the group have the same views when it comes to important things like politics as it is hypocritical to think you’re helping to overcome generations of racism and sexism by judging people as more or less deserving of something based on their race and sex.

从过道的这一边来看，这看起来是一个公然的双重标准。"为了促进多样性，纠正过去的种族主义和性别歧视，我们要优先雇用和提升非白人、非男性的人。我们要用种族主义和性别主义来对抗种族主义和性别主义。"
另外，流行文化似乎只考虑到种族和性别方面的"多样性"......这些东西对有眼睛的人来说都非常明显。但保守派还是经常谴责某些群体中缺乏政治意识形态的多样性，虽然这些群体早已为自己的多样性洋洋自得。 说到这一点，大学教授和主流媒体的编辑部是保守派的通常嫌疑人。
下面是《纽约时报》的编辑部。
这是一个漂亮的、看起来很多样化的群体。作为美国的"记录性报纸"来说，这并不坏。
除了右翼在董事会中的代表人数不足。 如果所有的差异都是表面上的，这真的是"多元化"吗？如果他们中的大多数人的想法或多或少其实都是一样的？
我在这里做一个大胆的预测，《纽约时报》的那群"多元化"的人，在对候选人进行长时间的思考后，会支持2024年、2028年、2032年等任何一位民主党人竞选总统。
对大学教授来说也是如此。现在，你可以在大多数大学找到一群看起来很多样化的教授，但是，很有可能，他们中的绝大多数人在政治上会倾向于左派。
当一个团体的大多数成员在涉及到政治等重要事情时都有相同的观点时，该团体为自己的"多样性"感到自豪，就像认为自己通过根据种族和性别判断人们更值得或不值得得到某些东西来帮助克服几代人的种族主义和性别歧视一样，是虚伪的。

Mark Tarte
Matt, I was voluntarily on our college’s diversity board whose name I forget now. I was in one of the meetings and it was me and the security director who were the only conservatives in the room. Our community college served three cities that were predominately White and Asian, with Hispanics a distant third. There were some Blacks and Pacific Islanders students on campus, but the campus reflected the community mostly. They talked about increasing the numbers of X race and Y ethnicity. I listened for about a half an hour and not once did they mention diversity of thought or belief. I decided to interject at that point and ask why are we looking at visible diversity and not that of thought and belief. You would have thought I had just revealed the secret of life to this committee. They all as one nodded and thought my input very profound and pondered it for about 30 seconds and went back to talking about color, race and ethnicity.

马特，我曾自愿加入我们学院的多元化委员会，我现在忘记了它的名字。我参加过一次会议，我和安全主管是房间里唯一的保守派。我们的社区学院为三个城市提供服务，这些城市以白人和亚洲人为主，西班牙裔人占第三位。校园里有一些黑人和太平洋岛民学生，但校园主要反映了社区的情况。他们谈到了增加X种族和Y族裔的人数。我听了大约半个小时，他们没有一次提到思想或信仰的多样性。我决定在这个时候插话，问为什么我们关注的是表面可见的多样性，而不是思想和信仰的多样性。你会认为我刚刚向这个委员会透露了生命的秘密。他们一致点头，认为我的意见非常深刻，并思考了大约30秒，然后继续讨论肤色、种族和民族。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Victor DeCostanza
If you ask why diversity is so important, the knee jerk answer is that so you can get a different viewpoint. Alas, when everyone, despite outward appearance has a homogeneous perspective, you have lost whatever benefit “diversity” would have delivered. They should just call it what it is, fulfilling racial quotas.

如果你问为什么多样性如此重要，下意识的答案应该是，这样你就可以获得不同的观点。唉，当每个人，尽管外表上不同却有着一个同质的观点，那你就已经失去了"多样性"所带来的任何好处。他们应该称其为"履行种族配额"。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Daniel Taylor
The problem is: nobody in the US gets to have a “homogeneous perspective” when their skin colour is different. The country is deeply affected by an ugly history of racism that it hasn’t yet confronted and made peace with, and until it does the perspective a person has damn well will depend on skin colour.
The fact that conservatives tend to ignore that ugly truth is exactly why we don’t trust their judgement on diversity. Because it’s coming from the same group who get ragingly angry when black people kneel - or stand up, or speak, or stay silent. Because “conservative” Americans are voting for politicians who openly oppose diversity of any kind, especially viewpoint, and then saying things like “what about diversity of viewpoint?”.
If you want more diversity of viewpoint - if you want to be trusted to bring diversity of viewpoint into the room - it’s going to help if you stop associating your viewpoint with people that call every viewpoint but their own a communist conspiracy to murder American babies.

问题是：在美国，只要肤色不同，就没有人可以拥有"同质化的观点"。这个国家深受丑陋的种族主义历史的影响，它还没有面对并与之和平共处，在这之前，一个人的观点非常有可能取决于肤色。
保守派倾向于忽视这一丑陋的事实，正是我们不相信他们对多样性的判断的原因。因为它来自同一个群体，当黑人下跪--或站起来，或说话，或保持沉默时，他们会感到愤怒。因为"保守"的美国人正在投票给那些公开反对任何形式的多样性，特别是观点的多样化的政治家，然后又说"观点的多样性呢？"这样的话。
如果你想要得到更多的观点上的多样性--如果你想要在你提出“需要观点的多样性”的评论的时候还有点可信度--那你不妨先停止把你的观点与那些称除了他们自己的观点之外的所有观点都是谋杀美国婴儿的共产主义阴谋的人联系起来，那会很有帮助。

Victor DeCostanza
Daniel Taylor: You say “nobody in the US gets to have a “homogeneous perspective” when their skin colour is different.”
What in the world do you mean by that? Everyone in the New York Times editorial board has the same viewpoints on practically every issue. Skin color has NOTHING to do with their perspectives. Anyone who disputes this one sided mindset gets fired or harassed out like James Bennet and Bari Weiss. And these were liberal journalists, just not radical enough.

丹尼尔-泰勒：你说"在美国，当他们的肤色不同时，没有人可以拥有一个"同质化的观点"。
你这话到底是什么意思？《纽约时报》编辑部的每个人几乎在每个问题上都有相同的观点。肤色与他们的观点没有任何关系。任何质疑这种片面心态的人都会被解雇，或者像詹姆斯-贝内特和巴里-魏斯那样被骚扰。而这些都还是自由派记者，只是不够激进。

Windy Wilson
I call that “M&M Diversity”. A rainbow of colors outside, same flavor inside.
General George S. Patron is alleged to have written “If everyone is thinking the same, nobody is thinking.” It was as true eighty years ago as it is today.

我把这称为"M&M（巧克力豆）多样性"。外面一看都是彩虹般的颜色，里面其实是同样的味道。
据称，乔治-S-帕特龙将军曾写道："如果每个人的想法都一样，那么就没有人在思考。" 这句话在80年前和今天一样正确。

Daniel Helmer
I grew up in rural Alaska. I am a white male, third generation Alaskan.
After I graduated highschool, (class of 06) I started looking into trade schools around the state.
Every one I looked at had certain a quota of Alaska Natives that they were required to accept. Many of these were full ride. All you needed was the correct ethnicity, and you had it made.
I had to save up my own money for a few years in order to afford the training I desired, simply because I was the wrong skin color.
As a result, my career got off to a later start than I would have hoped.
I can't complain though. The extra two years of working towards my goal taught me some valuable lessons, lessons I probably would have learned the hard way if the training had been “handed" to me.
So, yeah you're right. These sorts of things are what turn many conservatives away from so called “diversity”.

我在阿拉斯加农村长大。我是一名白人男性，第三代阿拉斯加人。
高中毕业后（06级），我开始在州内寻找贸易学校。
我看中的每所学校都有一定的阿拉斯加原住民配额，他们必须接受。其中许多是全额奖学金。你所需要的只是正确的种族，什么都不用干。
我不得不自己攒了几年的钱，以支付我想要的培训费用，仅仅是因为我的肤色不对。
因此，我的职业生涯起步比我希望的晚。
但我不能抱怨。为实现我的目标而多花的两年时间让我学到了一些宝贵的经验，如果培训是 别人"交给"我的，我反而可能会学不好。
所以，你是对的。这类事情使许多人对保守派所谓的"多样性"敬而远之。

Sydney Martin
We have the same damn mess on the Canadian end of the North. I’m in the NWT, and honestly, there is no good solution to the racial inequality and intolerance here. The policies surrounding race are so murky that everyone thinks some ones else is getting a better deal, and that they are being discriminated against for one reason or another. The real problem is that they are right. On one hand I’m favoured for a territorial government job because I’m a professional looking woman with a good work history (which can be read as a young white woman who’s privilege lets her get jobs easily), and on the other I can’t get a job working for the museum because I’m a white woman and it wouldn’t be seemly to have me presenting indigenous history. An Indigenous child can talk about there religious identity in elementary school, and it’s part of the curriculum, but a catholic child is discouraged from discussing theirs. On the other hand, there are public schools that teach a catholic education in the French language and an indigenous child is lucky to get a single high school course on their culture or in their language. There is absolutely no good or simple fix to the damn problem.

我们在加拿大北部也有同样的烂摊子。我在西北地区，老实说，这里的种族不平等和不容忍没有好的解决方案。围绕种族的政策是如此模糊不清，以至于每个人都认为其他一些人得到了更好的待遇，他们自己因为这样或那样的原因受到了歧视。真正的问题是，他们是对的。一方面，我很受领地政府的青睐，因为我是一个专业的女性，有良好的工作经历（可以理解为一个年轻的白人女性，她的特权让她很容易得到工作），另一方面，我不能得到一份在博物馆工作的工作，因为我是一个白人女性，让我介绍土著历史是不太合适的。土著儿童可以在小学里谈论他们的宗教身份，这是课程的一部分，但天主教儿童却不被鼓励讨论他们的宗教。另一方面，有些公立学校用法语教授天主教教育，而土著儿童能在高中得到一门关于其文化或其语言的课程就很幸运了。对于这个该死的问题，绝对没有好的或简单的解决办法。

Nick Henry
This hits at the most important point: Diversity of thought. Dennis Prager often says that Conservatives would be thrilled if the Supreme Court was filled with 9 black, lesbian, atheist Conservative women. Conversely, Conservatives would absolutely hate a SCOTUS comprised entirely of straight, white, male, religious Leftists.
Who a person is or how they identify sexually tells me almost nothing about that person. Conversely, what a person believes and how they conduct themselves tells me almost everything about them.

这击中了最重要的一点。思想的多样性。丹尼斯-普拉格经常说，如果最高法院由9名黑人、女同性恋、无神论者的保守派女性组成，保守派会很兴奋。相反，保守派绝对会讨厌一个完全由异性恋、白人、男性、宗教左派组成的上议院。
一个人是谁或他们的性取向如何，几乎不能说明这个人的情况。相反，一个人的信仰以及他们的行为方式几乎可以告诉我关于他们的一切。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Joy Black
One thing about Affirmative Action and now Diversity is that it gives jobs (or things like college acceptance) based on qualities that have nothing to do with qualifications or ability, often leading to higher potential for failure. About 30 years ago, my dad had been working for the City of Chicago Water Department and was passed over for a promotion to a position that he was fully qualified for and was performing while the application process was ongoing. The position was given to a “diverse” female candidate, whose completely lacked qualifications and experience, but the bureaucracy choose Affirmative Action points. Over time, she failed consistently at the job but her diversity and political connections made her untouchable. A few years and a couple of more promotions later, she was the cause of a Water Department scandal and the conclusion from investigators was that it was due to gross incompetence.

关于平权行动和现在的多样性的一件事是，它根据与资格或能力无关的品质给予工作（或像大学录取），往往导致更高的失败可能性。大约30年前，我父亲一直在芝加哥市水务局工作，在申请过程中，他被拒绝晋升到一个他完全有能力胜任并且正在履行的职位。这个职位给了一个"多元化"的女性候选人，她完全缺乏资格和经验，但官僚机构选择了根据平权行动的积分行动。随着时间的推移，她在工作中不断失败，但她的多样性和政治关系使她无法被动摇。几年又经历了几次晋升之后，她成为了水务局丑闻的起因，调查人员的结论是，这是由于严重的无能。

Bill Mann
Many years ago I was an aspiring radio DJ. At the beginning of my career I was working at a light rock station in the early 90’s. The station had just gone live after being on satellite and I lucked into an evening shift in a top 100 market.
The owners eventually applied for a CP (construction permit) for a new station in another market. As part of their research the FCC dropped by our station to see how it was being run. In short they basically told the owners that unless they hired a racial minority they would not be granted the CP (it was heavily inferred as they couldn’t legally demand it at the time).
We had no minorities for one reason: none had ever applied. I had gotten my position because one of the jocks worked at the broadcasting school I attended. She had made it known to her class that positions were open but only one other guy and myself applied (there were about a dozen in the class with about half being black). We both got jobs there. I believe they advertised in the local paper and on R&R but I am not sure (it was a looooong time ago).
The resolution was for the PD (program director) to go to the nearest HBCU and actively recruit for a position we no longer had. They ended up carving off the first 2 hours of my evening shift (M-F) for a young, black female who wasn’t interested in radio at all (she was majoring in Broadcasting but wanted to be a producer). She was an utter sweetheart but had the most God-awful scratchy and high-pitched voice… but she fulfilled the FCC’s silent quota.
Over the years and in different fields I saw similar events play out; someone was hired based heavily on their skin color rather than their job qualifications. More often than not these individuals would then fail at the job but because of the company’s fear of a discrimination-based lawsuit for firing the employee (those who did though were pushed by HR to overcompensate on poor work performance, meaning they had to give racial minorities more opportunities to change/succeed than they did for whites).
To me, this is what I think of when I hear about “diversity in the work place” and it comes from a couple of decades of first-hand experience at how employers handle it.

许多年前，我是一个有抱负的电台DJ。90年代初在我职业生涯的初期，我在一个轻摇滚电台工作。这个电台在使用卫星后刚刚上线，我很幸运地在一个排名前100的市场上上了晚班。
台主最终为另一个市场的新电台申请了CP（许可证）。作为他们研究的一部分，联邦通信委员会来到我们的电台，看看它是如何运作的。简而言之，他们基本上告诉台主，除非他们雇用少数族裔，否则他们不会被授予CP（这是一种严重的暗示，因为他们当时不能合法地要求这样做）。
我们没有少数族裔，原因之一是没有人申请。我之所以能得到这个职位，是因为一个运动员在我就读的广播学校工作。她向她的班级公布了职位空缺，但只有另外一个人和我去申请了（班上大约有十几个人，大约一半是黑人）。我们都在那里找到了工作。我相信他们也在当地报纸和R&R上做了广告，但我不确定（那是很久以前的事了）。
决议是由PD（项目主任）去附近的传统黑人大学，为我们已经撤销的职位积极招聘。他们最终把我晚班（周一至周五）的前两个小时分给了一个年轻的黑人女性，她对电台一点都不感兴趣（她主修广播，但想成为一名制作人）。她是一个非常可爱的人，但她的声音很难听，而且音调很高......但她满足了FCC的无声配额。
多年来，在不同的领域，我都看到了类似的事件；有人被雇用，主要是基于他们的肤色而不是他们的工作资格。这些人往往会在工作中失败，但因为公司担心解雇该员工会引起基于歧视的诉讼（那些解雇员工的人被人力资源部门逼迫对不良工作表现进行过度补偿，这意味着他们不得不给少数族裔更多的机会来改变/成功，而不是给白人）。
对我来说，当我听到"工作场所的多样性"时，我想到的就是这一点，它来自于几十年来对雇主如何处理它的第一手经验。

James Salvato
Let’s not even get to the fact that when people talk diversity; it is NEVER anyone disabled. How many on that NYT board has autism for example? Which of them is Epileptic? Probably none of them.

更别提当人们谈论多样性的时候：它永远不会有任何残疾人的位置。例如，《纽约时报》的董事会中，有多少人有自闭症？他们中有谁是癫痫患者？可能一个都没有。

Francois Scheepers
In South Africa our government has Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment policies that disenfranchise minorities(whites being only 8% of the population and white men being at the VERY bottom of the employment equity pile) to favour the majority.
The Apartheid government kept certain jobs for the white minority during that time, now the ANC has simply flipped the scxt by using a race based points system and is looking to make the BBBEE requirements even more stringent by setting industry specific requirements for the private sector.

在南非，我们的政府制定了广泛的黑人经济赋权政策，剥夺了少数民族的权利（白人只占人口的8%，白人男子处于就业公平的最底层），从而有利于大多数人。
种族隔离政府在那段时间为白人少数群体保留了某些工作，现在非国大已经简单地翻转了剧本，使用了基于种族的积分系统，并希望通过为私营部门制定具体的行业要求，使BBBEE（黑人经济振兴法）的要求更加严格。

Dallas McKay
You didn't even bring up the concept of “diversity for diversity's sake” dilemma that frequently interferes with decision making. It used to be called “tokenism,” and was seen as a bad thing. Now It's the standard.

你甚至没有提到"为多样性而多样性"的概念，这个困境经常干扰决策。它曾经被称为"象征主义"，并被视为一件坏事。现在它却成了标准。

Joeseph McCarthy
When the quest for “Diversity” causes unqualified people to be advanced simply because of their color or gender, or causes the bar to be lowered for people of a certain color or gender to ensure they will pass (and I have seen both!), then that worries me. When I am in the care of a black doctor or nurse, I sometimes worry that the person was the “beneficiary” of such tactics and it reduces my level of trust a great deal. I do not want to trust my money or my health to someone who has benefited from having the “skids greased” so more people of color can be said to have graduated, or to have received “A”s for work that would have netted a white person or Asian a “B-” or “C.”

当对"多样性"的追求导致不合格的人仅仅因为他们的肤色或性别而被提升，或者导致降低对某种肤色或性别的人的标准以确保他们能够通过（我看到过这两种情况！），那么我就会担心。当我接受一个黑人医生或护士的护理时，我有时会担心这个人是不是这种策略的"受益者"，这大大降低了我的信任程度。我不想把我的钱或我的健康托付给这样的人。