5 ms·

> mostly everybody agrees with that What??? /me suddenly understands what's meant by "privilege"

habosa 11y ago
I think tomp is saying that most everyone agrees that society should have some inequality. It could be as little as "the employee of the month gets a dollar raise!", but most people would agree that a perfectly equal society is very hard to ensure and likely not desirable.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
tomp 11y ago
Hm... can you find anyone who honestly disagrees with "inequality is good", and therefore claims that "inequality is bad" and so "equality is good" (and also proposes a reasonable and practical implemntation)? Even communists only preached, not practiced, this.
- progressive_dad 11y ago
  Slavoj Zizek? http://keshek.tumblr.com/image/36898581401 http://keshek.tumblr.com/image/36898581401
- Rusky 11y ago
  Depending on what you mean by "inequality" and "equality," loads of people. While I doubt you could find many people who want some artificial straw-man world where everyone is completely and totally equal in every way, you should have no trouble at all finding people upset about the vast difference in quality of life between the rich and poor of humanity.
  - tomp 11y ago
    > upset about the vast difference in quality of life between the rich and poor of humanity Absolutely; I am, for one. But that's not inequality, it's extreme inequality. Which I agree is a bad thing. But if you believe inequality is bad, then it must follow that you believe only complete equality (in the economic sense) is good. Which is so unrealistic that we can almost say it's a logical fallacy.
    - circlefavshape 11y ago
      > if you believe inequality is bad, then it must follow that you believe only complete equality (in the economic sense) is good You claim inequality is good. Must it follow that you "believe only complete inequality is good"?
      - tomp 11y ago
        Depends what you mean by "complete" inequality. From the two, "equality" is much more limited than "inequality". For example, of all numbers, only 2 is equal to 2. All other numbers (2.0000001, 1, -100, 10^1412) are not equal to 2. So obviously if you claim "inequality is bad", this means you eliminate all numbers, except for 2 exactly. On the other hand, if you claim "inequality is good", you only eliminate the number 2, and no other numbers (also, I don't see how any of them are more "completely" inequal than others).
        Rusky 11y ago
        English is not math. As you should be able to tell by now, that is not at all what people mean by "inequality is bad."

I think tomp is saying that most everyone agrees that society should have some inequality. It could be as little as "the employee of the month gets a dollar raise!", but most people would agree that a perfectly equal society is very hard to ensure and likely not desirable.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

tomp 11y ago

Hm... can you find anyone who honestly disagrees with "inequality is good", and therefore claims that "inequality is bad" and so "equality is good" (and also proposes a reasonable and practical implemntation)? Even communists only preached, not practiced, this.

progressive_dad 11y ago
Slavoj Zizek? http://keshek.tumblr.com/image/36898581401 http://keshek.tumblr.com/image/36898581401
Rusky 11y ago
Depending on what you mean by "inequality" and "equality," loads of people. While I doubt you could find many people who want some artificial straw-man world where everyone is completely and totally equal in every way, you should have no trouble at all finding people upset about the vast difference in quality of life between the rich and poor of humanity.
- tomp 11y ago
  > upset about the vast difference in quality of life between the rich and poor of humanity Absolutely; I am, for one. But that's not inequality, it's extreme inequality. Which I agree is a bad thing. But if you believe inequality is bad, then it must follow that you believe only complete equality (in the economic sense) is good. Which is so unrealistic that we can almost say it's a logical fallacy.
  - circlefavshape 11y ago
    > if you believe inequality is bad, then it must follow that you believe only complete equality (in the economic sense) is good You claim inequality is good. Must it follow that you "believe only complete inequality is good"?
    - tomp 11y ago
      Depends what you mean by "complete" inequality. From the two, "equality" is much more limited than "inequality". For example, of all numbers, only 2 is equal to 2. All other numbers (2.0000001, 1, -100, 10^1412) are not equal to 2. So obviously if you claim "inequality is bad", this means you eliminate all numbers, except for 2 exactly. On the other hand, if you claim "inequality is good", you only eliminate the number 2, and no other numbers (also, I don't see how any of them are more "completely" inequal than others).
      - Rusky 11y ago
        English is not math. As you should be able to tell by now, that is not at all what people mean by "inequality is bad."