6 ms·

> In those parts of society, values like equality, liberation, and cosmopolitanism aren’t just treated as values—organisations of society that different people

> In those parts of society, values like equality, liberation, and cosmopolitanism aren’t just treated as values—organisations of society that different people prefer to different degrees—they’re considered moral. So is equality a value you share or not?

jeffreyrogers 9y ago
What kind of equality? Liberals and conservatives tend to have different definitions.
stcredzero 9y ago
Equality of opportunity is foundational. It's a good definition of fairness. Equality of outcomes is insanity. The presumption that it is how things are supposed to be has basically been used to justify anything, up to and including rape and genocide. "Equality of outcomes" is basically Marxian ideology dressed up as a virus to be injected into a democratic society. It throws out meritocracy. Is it any wonder that many ideologies which espouse it also seek to throw out logic itself? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- asteli 9y ago
  Do people actually argue in favor of equality of outcomes? Can't say I've ever seen this done, but then again I haven't seen everything. The fundamental issue that I see addressed in social justice is that opportunity is deeply and currently inextricably affected by your circumstances in life. Taking steps to address this, is, as you said, foundational.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Do people actually argue in favor of equality of outcomes? When people presume that a 50/50 gender distribution is the goal, and that falling short of that is evidence of discrimination, then yes, they are arguing for equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity would allow for skews in various fields to work themselves out naturally.
    - asteli 9y ago
      But that isn't how equality works. A heavily skewed field, tech for example, isn't going to self-correct. Even with the diversity efforts, tech remains hostile to underrepresented populations. Ask a woman in tech, or a black man in tech what their experience is. Often there's an unstated assumption that they don't belong, or that they're at a lower level. I'm south asian, and when I visit my work's offices on the east coast, I get pegged as an electrical technician rather than an engineer. /And I'm in the in-group generally/. I'd also argue that 50% is a much better goal for gender diversity in engineering than the ~10% representation women have currently, especially considering that the gender equilibrium point for engineering is currently unknowable due to the massive systemic discrimination/opportunity problems.
      - barrkel 9y ago
        Everybody knows this argument, you don't need to trot it out. The issue at hand is in how it is applied as a lever for power by the people who apply it. Remember: meta-criticism.
      - gizmo686 9y ago
        It sounds like you are arguing for equality of outcomes.
        asteli 9y ago
        "Equality of Outcomes" sounds like something that would be relevant when you have a pool of candidates to compare against each other. There's a lot more to hiring than selecting from a candidate pool though. Where and how you recruit, outreach, building candidate pipelines, etc. Maybe I'm wrong in my understanding of "Equality of Outcomes," but I don't see that concept as being inextricably linked with targeting a particular gender split. If you only target female candidates for a year, is that enforcement of "Equality of Outcomes," despite having relatively fewer male candidates to compare against?
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        But that isn't how equality works. A heavily skewed field, tech for example, isn't going to self-correct. I have no problem with front-loaded incentives. Google started recruiting directly on the campus of Howard University, and they have the numbers to show that it actually revealed qualified applicants that would otherwise have been missed. But mandated quotas which are equality of outcome are problematic to meritocracy itself. Equality of Outcome logically contradicts Equality of Opportunity, and must be rejected.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    People use inequality of outcomes as evidence of prejudice and forbid explanations other than inequality of opportunity or treatment as thoughtcrime. They argue for equality of outcomes in aggregate (ie in a distribution, when comparing different groups broken up by colour or sex or gender or whatever) by criticizing inequal outcomes as evidence of wrongness, a problem needing fixing. To be sure, I think difference in outcomes in aggregate is a strong signal of unfairness in the system. But the mechanism of the critique, and its employment of thoughtcrime punishment, and ideologues' apparent complete lack of concern for inverted power situations (like when girls do better in school than boys) make me deeply suspicious of such people's motivations.
  - Trundle 9y ago
    Between all individuals? No, I don't see much of that. Between some groups though? Yes, there are many that are aiming for parity after you split people in to different bundles. I don't think they see themselves as being for equality of outcome though. Some of those people don't see any reason for there to not be equality of outcome between groups other than discrimination. So to them, they aren't after equality of outcome, they're fighting discrimination. It just so happens that those things are one and the same for them. For others, I think they recognise that their initiatives are focused on equality of outcome, but the long term goal is to achieve equality of opportunity. The idea being that seeing people like yourself do something is important in considering it an option, and that making yourself a minority isn't very attractive even if the other aspects of the position might be. The equality of outcome in the short term approach is a way to address the chicken and egg style problem of for example, not wanting to be the only woman in a 15 person development team.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Haha, this comment got me a BINGO on my "spooky cultural marxism" board.
- ballenarosada 9y ago
  How in the world do you propose to achieve equality of opportunity without equality of (many) outcomes?
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Equality of outcomes contradicts equality of opportunity. Your question is a non-sequitur.
  - Jtsummers 9y ago
    Equality of outcomes, typically, means very near equal income, access to resources, etc. in adult life. Regardless of their aptitude, skill, or individual choices, or even the work they do. It's a pipe dream because there's no feasible way to achieve it. Equality of opportunity means we aim to provide everyone access to the same chances. Reduce the (present and historic) systemic discrimination by race and gender. Improve access to the basic tools required to achieve success (education and mobility). But we cannot guarantee that everyone will turn out the same (either by choice, fortune, or misfortune it just won't happen). It may still be a pipe dream, but it's far more achievable.
    - abusoufiyan 9y ago
      >Reduce the (present and historic) systemic discrimination by race and gender. How will you do this and how will you measure the results of the attempts to do this without measuring the outcomes of your attempts to do this?
      - Jtsummers 9y ago
        Why wouldn't you measure the outcomes? You have to. What you don't ask for, though, is that all outcomes be equal, because it's a fundamentally absurd proposition.
  - zeveb 9y ago
    The only way that equality of opportunity would lead to equality of outcomes is if skill and preference were equally distributed. The thing is, we know that they're not. And since skill and preference are not equally distributed, equality of opportunity will inevitably lead to inequality of outcomes. And that's okay: different people are different.
abusoufiyan 9y ago
What the hell are values if they aren't moral? What the hell do you call your value system if you don't call it your morals? Such a dumb article...

jeffreyrogers 9y ago

What kind of equality? Liberals and conservatives tend to have different definitions.

stcredzero 9y ago

Equality of opportunity is foundational. It's a good definition of fairness. Equality of outcomes is insanity. The presumption that it is how things are supposed to be has basically been used to justify anything, up to and including rape and genocide. "Equality of outcomes" is basically Marxian ideology dressed up as a virus to be injected into a democratic society. It throws out meritocracy. Is it any wonder that many ideologies which espouse it also seek to throw out logic itself? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
asteli 9y ago
Do people actually argue in favor of equality of outcomes? Can't say I've ever seen this done, but then again I haven't seen everything. The fundamental issue that I see addressed in social justice is that opportunity is deeply and currently inextricably affected by your circumstances in life. Taking steps to address this, is, as you said, foundational.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Do people actually argue in favor of equality of outcomes? When people presume that a 50/50 gender distribution is the goal, and that falling short of that is evidence of discrimination, then yes, they are arguing for equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity would allow for skews in various fields to work themselves out naturally.
  - asteli 9y ago
    But that isn't how equality works. A heavily skewed field, tech for example, isn't going to self-correct. Even with the diversity efforts, tech remains hostile to underrepresented populations. Ask a woman in tech, or a black man in tech what their experience is. Often there's an unstated assumption that they don't belong, or that they're at a lower level. I'm south asian, and when I visit my work's offices on the east coast, I get pegged as an electrical technician rather than an engineer. /And I'm in the in-group generally/. I'd also argue that 50% is a much better goal for gender diversity in engineering than the ~10% representation women have currently, especially considering that the gender equilibrium point for engineering is currently unknowable due to the massive systemic discrimination/opportunity problems.
    - barrkel 9y ago
      Everybody knows this argument, you don't need to trot it out. The issue at hand is in how it is applied as a lever for power by the people who apply it. Remember: meta-criticism.
    - gizmo686 9y ago
      It sounds like you are arguing for equality of outcomes.
      - asteli 9y ago
        "Equality of Outcomes" sounds like something that would be relevant when you have a pool of candidates to compare against each other. There's a lot more to hiring than selecting from a candidate pool though. Where and how you recruit, outreach, building candidate pipelines, etc. Maybe I'm wrong in my understanding of "Equality of Outcomes," but I don't see that concept as being inextricably linked with targeting a particular gender split. If you only target female candidates for a year, is that enforcement of "Equality of Outcomes," despite having relatively fewer male candidates to compare against?
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      But that isn't how equality works. A heavily skewed field, tech for example, isn't going to self-correct. I have no problem with front-loaded incentives. Google started recruiting directly on the campus of Howard University, and they have the numbers to show that it actually revealed qualified applicants that would otherwise have been missed. But mandated quotas which are equality of outcome are problematic to meritocracy itself. Equality of Outcome logically contradicts Equality of Opportunity, and must be rejected.
- barrkel 9y ago
  People use inequality of outcomes as evidence of prejudice and forbid explanations other than inequality of opportunity or treatment as thoughtcrime. They argue for equality of outcomes in aggregate (ie in a distribution, when comparing different groups broken up by colour or sex or gender or whatever) by criticizing inequal outcomes as evidence of wrongness, a problem needing fixing. To be sure, I think difference in outcomes in aggregate is a strong signal of unfairness in the system. But the mechanism of the critique, and its employment of thoughtcrime punishment, and ideologues' apparent complete lack of concern for inverted power situations (like when girls do better in school than boys) make me deeply suspicious of such people's motivations.
- Trundle 9y ago
  Between all individuals? No, I don't see much of that. Between some groups though? Yes, there are many that are aiming for parity after you split people in to different bundles. I don't think they see themselves as being for equality of outcome though. Some of those people don't see any reason for there to not be equality of outcome between groups other than discrimination. So to them, they aren't after equality of outcome, they're fighting discrimination. It just so happens that those things are one and the same for them. For others, I think they recognise that their initiatives are focused on equality of outcome, but the long term goal is to achieve equality of opportunity. The idea being that seeing people like yourself do something is important in considering it an option, and that making yourself a minority isn't very attractive even if the other aspects of the position might be. The equality of outcome in the short term approach is a way to address the chicken and egg style problem of for example, not wanting to be the only woman in a 15 person development team.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Haha, this comment got me a BINGO on my "spooky cultural marxism" board.
ballenarosada 9y ago
How in the world do you propose to achieve equality of opportunity without equality of (many) outcomes?
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Equality of outcomes contradicts equality of opportunity. Your question is a non-sequitur.
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  Equality of outcomes, typically, means very near equal income, access to resources, etc. in adult life. Regardless of their aptitude, skill, or individual choices, or even the work they do. It's a pipe dream because there's no feasible way to achieve it. Equality of opportunity means we aim to provide everyone access to the same chances. Reduce the (present and historic) systemic discrimination by race and gender. Improve access to the basic tools required to achieve success (education and mobility). But we cannot guarantee that everyone will turn out the same (either by choice, fortune, or misfortune it just won't happen). It may still be a pipe dream, but it's far more achievable.
  - abusoufiyan 9y ago
    >Reduce the (present and historic) systemic discrimination by race and gender. How will you do this and how will you measure the results of the attempts to do this without measuring the outcomes of your attempts to do this?
    - Jtsummers 9y ago
      Why wouldn't you measure the outcomes? You have to. What you don't ask for, though, is that all outcomes be equal, because it's a fundamentally absurd proposition.
- zeveb 9y ago
  The only way that equality of opportunity would lead to equality of outcomes is if skill and preference were equally distributed. The thing is, we know that they're not. And since skill and preference are not equally distributed, equality of opportunity will inevitably lead to inequality of outcomes. And that's okay: different people are different.

abusoufiyan 9y ago

What the hell are values if they aren't moral? What the hell do you call your value system if you don't call it your morals? Such a dumb article...