8 - Once again we find ourselves facing undisguised ignorance. My answer to this would be just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You’ve heard of the island of Fiji discussed before, right? Are you willing to accept the reality of its existence though you haven’t percieved it with your own eyes? This is a denial again, based solely on ignorance.

9 - Here’s a great question, typically asked by some (again) ignorant person who doesn’t want to be bothered with digesting the opinions of someone who is unlike themselves. This is the rallying cry of a homogenized society that is unwilling to accept a viewpoint that differs from its own. To have to break outside their normal (LIMITED) spectrum of thought and show sensitivity to someone else’s point of view is too much for their small mind to handle, so they lash out with what they consider to be either a valid point or a brash proclamation of….something. What they don’t realize is that they’re shouting from the rooftops that they are immovable and uninterested in the feelings and background of anyone different from themselves. This is one of the worst conversation stoppers at all, because it just screams “I DON’T GET IT!!!!”

5 - This is ignorance at its best. Diversity isn’t an excuse for anything - diversity is an observation of the difference of things. This is, like the first three from yesterday, another flat-out dismissal. So is #4. I think what it boils down to is all of these statements dismiss the point and therefore stop the conversation.

6 - While this is again a dismissal, it also has another implication that needs to be addressed. Identifying into groups provides each of us with personal context. We have to look at where we come from in order to see where we can go in the future. I would like to ask the person who made that statement “If you feel that way, are you willing to completely abandon any identifier that makes you you? Gender, ethnicity, interests, creed, etc. All are groups that provide divisions.” Some people are just uncomfortable looking at the racial ones - and why is that? If you were truly a person who didn’t care about race, why would it bother you to talk about it?

Usually someone who is so dismissive has their own personal problems about race that they’re terrified might come to light in a real discussion about race, so they are quick to dismiss it.

Statement #2 reminds me of someone repeating “they’re more afraid of me than I am of them” when encountering spiders or mice or some other phobia. A person could take this kind of statement insultingly or derisively as evidence that the speaker is afraid of the unfamiliar, or it can be viewed as someone taking a courageous step and attempting to overcome their fears.

Statement #3 is kind-of odd if you take it in a literal sense. Would you say that deep-down you were the same as serial killer? Is being human essential or superficial? It could be brought up that just because two people have something in common, it doesn’t automatically mean that that thing is good.

I agree that all three of these statements can be taken - and can be used- as dismissals. Sometimes what is meant is simply “preaching to the converted here” (albeit to the converted who have read a few too many slogans)

Each statement could be also be used to open discussion. You might ask the speaker in statement #1 if variations in color aren’t part of the nature of diversity and perhaps what they meant was that they try not to make assumptions based on color. With statement #2 you might discuss differences which make the world more interesting. With #3 you could launch into a philisophical discussion of what it means to be a human v.s. individual.

Diversity is the nature of the world. The same statement which may bring hope to one person may deeply offend another. Who has not said something that didn’t really come out quite right, or was taken the wrong way. People who make statements such as these are most likely not against diversity. If we try to see the hope hiding behind the verbal clumsiness, we can open discussion more often than we allow it to be shut down.

All three of the above comments are, as Ms Cake pointed out, dismissals. When you arbitrarily dismiss the arguments of one of the parties, you “stop the conversation”. The argument may continue, the fighting may continue, but the DISCUSSION will end. There can be no DISCUSSION without reason, understanding, and usually compromise. By dismissing someone’s point, no matter how “nicely” (or even accidentally condescending) you may be, you are, tho that person, dismissing THEM.