That is a hot take. Credit due.

I'd say their latest success was Skyrim, but their prime was Morrowind - but more so during the era it came out.

Starfield isn't a bad game. It's just so damned bland, and the story can make up it's mind about tone.

I did the first UEC mission, with the terrormorph, at night and was wowed. Everything else was the equivalent of unseasoned boiled green beans from there.

Accordingly, it's no wonder the right, with its inferred understanding of diversity, engages in the same behavior, just in reverse. They mirror the very 'diversity' championed, and it obviously looks racist.

So, who cares if they're all white - you're already right about them all being unqualified.

Diversity's value is in getting different perspectives and including different lived experiences/skills/expertise

But diversity, instead, seems to most often be used as an overly simplified substitute for the most extreme opposite to straight white male. It's antagonisticly applied.

Still looking at it all through the lens of race, though.

Their lack of qualifications is sufficient. Their race is irrelevant unless you value race as a value in and of itself.

What value is in diversity in a vacuum? You'd select by race, but that's not what diversity is intended to select for.

Correction: Florida was drug testing for *Welfare*, and it cost more than just giving the relative handful of abusers welfare.

Ex: anyone honest is OK with the concept of a Food Assistance program

The issue they have is with how many people abuse it, but that's based on how many people they think abuse it vs. how many actually do

Take FL that tried to drug test for food stamps. Cost more to drug test than there was abuse

My point is that, even when I talk with your average con and discuss policy & programs, specifics, they largely agree with those things

The disagreement is almost always on how it's done and to what extent

So you have a point of agreement - build from there

Can't if you're on your own island

To be unwilling to compromise or come to some sort of agreement is childish and immature.

Don't let the ideal become the enemy of the good.

Between the extreme ends? Sure, I would agree.

But being unwilling to compromise and coming to some sort of agreement means you necessarily have to become a tyrant.

Social issues are rarely simple and clean. To get support, you are likely going to need to include some of the opposition.

I would view centrism, or at least one form/interpretation, as wanting to be fair, honest, and nuanced with a given topic.

Few topics are one-sided and without some give and take.

What's more, centrism also allows room for opponents to find a place of agreement with which to work from.