Equity

Post by **TheCatt** » Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:09 am

This seems to be a burgeoning keyword of the progressive left over the past few/several years.

Instead of equality of opportunity, some people are demanding equality of outcome (equity). I want people to be able to get what they need in life and support a higher minimum wage and single payer health care. But, I cannot support equality of outcome for all people/Socialism.

But where does equity end? Do we spend bottomless money and effort to teach kids who are barely teachable in schools? Since smart kids will "do just fine" they should be completely ignored? Insanity. But I feel that's how our (Thib + I) school system works.

I don't get it, and I don't understand the mindset either.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:24 am

TheCatt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:09 am I don't get it, and I don't understand the mindset either.

Let me help you out:

Post by **Leisher** » Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:28 am

It's an absolutely beautiful dream and I fully get it. However, it shows how absolutely stupid the people who buy into this are and how they have no concept of reality.

As you said, equality of opportunity should be the goal. After that, each person is on their own. That's how life works. That's reality. That's human nature. Some people are just better at things than others. Some people are simply morons. Some people are lazy, while others are hard workers. The list goes on.

Equality of outcome is an unrealistic pipe dream where all people have exactly the same skills. Can you sing like Whiney Houston (when she was alive)? Can you play QB like Tom Brady? Can you predict stock market behavior like Warren Buffett? Thinking ALL people would have the same success in ALL situations is honestly one of the stupidest beliefs possible.

Post by **TheCatt** » Mon Jan 31, 2022 12:11 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:28 am However, it shows how absolutely stupid the people who buy into this are and how they have no concept of reality.

But, Leisher, we're the richest nation on Earth, how can we NOT do all of this?

Leisher wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:28 am As you said, equality of opportunity should be the goal.

But that's not enough. Every in a modern society works together, and should all share in the spoils. Just because they weren't born with Whitney's talent doesn't mean they don't deserve what she produces. Why should people be victims of the lives they were born into?

Post by **thibodeaux** » Mon Jan 31, 2022 12:41 pm

In all serious, of course this whole thing isn't new at all. Harrsion Bergeron was written in 1961, Ayn Rand wrote her stuff even earlier. Really this is just Marxism re-packaged, with Cis White Men being the all-purpose oppressors, and everybody else the oppressed. One could make the argument that our Declaration of Independecne (all men created equal) or even Christianity is the culprit.

Sadly, though many arguments against Marxism have been made, they're always ignored. Just look at the first panel of the comic: "One gets more." Well, how did he get it? The last panel answers: there's a "systemic" cause. It's never that some people are smarter, better, more talented (much less that some people are just dumb and not very productive). All are equal, remember? So if somebody "gets more"...it had to be because of systemic injustice.

And let's not even get started on the insistence that beauty doesn't exist...if you think fat or ugly people aren't attractive, well, that's just you shaming somebody.

Post by **TheCatt** » Mon Jan 31, 2022 12:47 pm

thibodeaux wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 12:41 pm In all serious, of course this whole thing isn't new at all. Harrsion Bergeron was written in 1961, Ayn Rand wrote her stuff even earlier. Really this is just Marxism re-packaged, with Cis White Men being the all-purpose oppressors, and everybody else the oppressed. One could make the argument that our Declaration of Independecne (all men created equal) or even Christianity is the culprit.

I know. Every time someone brings it up, I ask them how it worked our for Harrison Bergeron. Half the time I get blank stares.

It jut feels like it's resurging more, maybe I'm wrong, and I'm just getting a distorted view.

Post by **Leisher** » Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:04 pm

TheCatt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 12:47 pm It jut feels like it's resurging more, maybe I'm wrong, and I'm just getting a distorted view.

I think it's both.

It definitely is surging, but it has been for several years. All the Bernie fans are typically in this camp. However, you're probably being exposed to it a lot more now. This could be a result of whatever algorithms decide daily what you want to see.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:15 pm

The use of the word "equity" in this scenario IS new, I agree, and there HAS been an acceleration, in the sense that most big companies are on the bandwagon. They like to call it "diversity, equity, and inclusion." For companies that require annual "training" in this, I call it "Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity Yearly Training."

Or: "DIE YT" for short.

Post by **Leisher** » Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:17 pm

thibodeaux wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:15 pm The use of the word "equity" in this scenario IS new, I agree, and there HAS been an acceleration, in the sense that most big companies are on the bandwagon. They like to call it "diversity, equity, and inclusion." For companies that require annual "training" in this, I call it "Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity Yearly Training."

Or: "DIE YT" for short.

That's pretty clever.

Post by **TheCatt** » Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:24 pm

thibodeaux wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:15 pm The use of the word "equity" in this scenario IS new, I agree, and there HAS been an acceleration, in the sense that most big companies are on the bandwagon. They like to call it "diversity, equity, and inclusion." For companies that require annual "training" in this, I call it "Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity Yearly Training."

Or: "DIE YT" for short.

hah!