Zuckerberg quote from article: >I think you need to have all kinds of diversity if you want to make progress together as a society

While I do think there are benifits to idealogical diversity, I think this statement is hamfisted. Do climate deniers aid the progress of climate science? Do flat earthers contribute meaningfully to cosmology, geography or cartography? No. I believe the actual benifits of idealogical diversity stem from scepticism and falsifiability within a community (science). A flat earther physicist would add idealogical deversity to the physics community but they wouldn't contribute to the progress of the field.

In softer, less objective spheres such as social issues and politics, the same idea applies. Does giving racsim a platform in the name of diversity really progress society? Maybe it could by reinforcing the beliefs of anti-racist people and thus diminishing racism. However it could also propagate racsim regressing society, which I think is a more likely outcome.

These problems and questions do not have a simple, computable solutions. The matters of progress are entirely subjective making fair solutions nuanced and difficult to come by. That's why I think statements like the one Zuckerberg made are hamfisted because they offer a one-size-fits-all solution to these nuanced complicated problems.

DISCLAIMER: I am not taking a stance on Peter Theil and Facebook, I am just responding to rhetoric that I have seen frequently since The Election™

"All kinds of diversity" sounds a lot to me like "all lives matter".

You can't have racial and gender diversity while keeping racists and misogynists at the top of your company. Why would you want to work for someone who doesn't think you're entitled to fair pay? Or to live in your home? Or to be married to your spouse?

Having a workplace that's accepting of diversity requires kicking out bigots.

I think silencing people by throwing labels at them is way more regressive and dangerous than anything Thiel has ever done.

Women and minorities have no obligation to enrich someone working against their interests. The only "silencing" going on is the universal desire to not work for a jerk.

The majority of people also believe in nutty religious superstitions but we're not banning them arbitrarily. If we were to ban everyone whom held nutty ideas, they're would be zero other people whom with to work and invest.

So we pick and choose our battles. This is the world libertarians supposedly want. Cake shops and social media companies are free to employ bigots, and the rest of us are free to refuse to do business with them, work for them, etc.

tl;dr - reasonable man has non-reactionary opinion.

Which, when made public immediately results in a flood of reactionary and absolutist opinions.

I guess he's really not running for office.

This reminds me of the old saying that my knowledge is not equal to your ignorance. Diversity does not equal lying as a work method, narcism and psychopathy.

NB: Title edited for space.