No, I wasn't making that mistake at all. I was talking about racial diversity because YOU were talking about racial diversity, pointing to the Swedes as an example of an ethnically homogenous culture that is able to Get Things Done due presumably to the fact that most folks there are blonde. (Side note: if you'd like a meatier comment to respond to, there's always the parent's that you're ignoring:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8368839)
I pointed out that you were talking like a Nazi because, in this instance, you were talking like a Nazi. Do I think you secretly harbor a desire to wipe out an ethnicity via genocide? Nope. Do I think that criticizing ethnic diversity as standing in the way of progress sounds suspiciously fascist? Why yes, yes I do!
Identity politics has no doubt hamstrung the American left, but that has had little to do with your cited example of the failure to implement a nationalized healthcare system. Diversity increases viewpoints, more viewpoints invite stronger debate. Does less debate lead to better outcomes, or faster outcomes? Which is preferable?
