4 ms·

> The larger subtext of the entire diversity conversation is learning to coexist. It's not about black people, women, the LGBTQ community, or any other single g

> The larger subtext of the entire diversity conversation is learning to coexist. It's not about black people, women, the LGBTQ community, or any other single group. It's about a better working environment for everyone indefinitely. Being against that is literally pathological. About this.... There's something I've noticed is that when one group has rights by default, and another doesnt, fighting for equality or equity feels like to the innate group that rights are taken away. Its the perception of zero-sum game versus a positive-sum game. For the in-group, having others brought up to your status feels like its reducing yours... But it doesn't. Whereas rights can be assessed for everyone. The more rights we all have is a positive sum. A rising tide raises all boats.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fullshark 8y ago
It's not about rights, which there is no scarcity of, it's about the fact that there's always some social competition for scarce resources (college admissions, jobs, dating opportunities, grants, cultural conversations, etc) and if one group currently has a significant chunk of those they will feel threatened that their share of those resources is being taken away.
the_grue 8y ago
Equity means "equality of outcome". That's another way of saying "look which group is at the bottom of the hierarchy and improve their condition at the expense of those at the top". This is quite the opposite of what we, as a liberal, individualistic society want to achieve - we want equality of opportunity, so that everyone plays the game according to the same rules, but the outcome should be determined by competition, not through quotas or redistribution of goods. Because that's a Marxist way of taking care of problems, and we all know how well that went every single time they tried it.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  That's why I said both. Some groups are making hard stands for calling for equity, and others are calling for equality. I'm refraining on making a judgement call on which one is better, given I'm a tall white male. And the groups demanding this are African Americans who have been wronged by various state policies. I'll refrain from interpreting their meaning, and repeat verbatim. I also think it's disingenuous to claim what "equity" is. This is a common tactic to define a word, and then destroy the stated definition, thus demeaning the original word. And bringing Marxism is guaranteed for a shitstorm..
  - the_grue 8y ago
    > I also think it's disingenuous to claim what "equity" is. The definition I gave is the one widely used in academic disciplines such as "black studies", "gender studies", "women studies" and "whiteness studies". I did not invent it. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada) > Some groups are making hard stands for calling for equity I'm not sure which groups are calling for what, but the 20th century experience is clear: Marxism doesn't work. So identity politics should be resisted as much as possible, irrespective of who's calling for it. > And bringing Marxism is guaranteed for a shitstorm.. If I didn't do a very good job of arguing why I consider it Marxism, perhaps Jordan Peterson explains it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqcRVmOpIbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqcRVmOpIbY As to causing a shitstorm - I believe that's inevitable when you have an honest discussion on such an important and divisive topic. That doesn't mean such a discussion should be avoided, on the contrary - the more difficult and divisive the topic is, the more important it is to discuss it openly, so that each side may argue their positions as best as they can and hopefully advance towards solution that works for everyone involved.
- apocalypstyx 8y ago
  > Because that's a Marxist way of taking care of problems This is so ill-defined as to be useless. If by Marxist we are speaking of what mark (and Engels) wrote, then it must be pointed out Marx was against equality as a metric or measure. And that, contrary to popular belief, he did not originate collectivism and egalitarianism, but heavily critiqued the proponents and thinkers of such that existed in his time. https://anarchopac.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/marx-and-engels-were-not-egalitarians/ https://anarchopac.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/marx-and-engels-... > equality of opportunity Interestingly enough, this is another way of saying no equality at all. That is, the outcome of the competition is, by and large, predetermined. Children born into affluent homes will be sent to better schools, have better tutors, have parents who understand such social systems, and even posses such (seemingly minor, unless we of course want to talk about brain development) advantages as being fed enough nutritious food as to not be hungry. The athlete with access to experts and money and training (and time to spend otherwise not having to earn a living while they train) will outperform the runner who gets in a couple miles after work. (This, of course, extends to everything aspect of business and life. I'm sure there are many people who, if they're parents had had a few extra hundred thousand or million dollars to invest in their child't first few failed businesses, there are a lot of people who could be "successful".) So if we want "equality of opportunity" the first thing we have to do is divorce parents and children in something like Plato's creche. Otherwise we must admit that the system is built not on allowing the meritorious to rise (with whatever definition of meritorious we employ) but instituted by a power class to maintain that same power class. > plays the game When survival is on the line, how is it rational to 'play by the rules'. If someone existed in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, would it be rational to to hand over their family's stock of food on the outcome of a chess game?
  - the_grue 8y ago
    > This is so ill-defined as to be useless. The article you linked provides some quotes from Marx and Engels which argue that full equality along all dimensions can never be achieved. But this didn't stop all the implementations of Marxism in real life to still push the equity thing hard. So your argument is actually immaterial. > That is, the outcome of the competition is, by and large, predetermined. I disagree. The Western states have social lifts that are designed to allow people from low-income families to still be able to achieve high positions in society, given talent and hard work. Public schools, state-sponsored higher education, public health care, children services are examples of such lifts. If these systems do not work very well, then we should improve them as opposed to favoring a Black kid at the entry exam of university at the expense of an Asian kid who is just as smart. Because once we start discriminating and making preferences, it's very hard to stop. Especially when the problem we're trying to solve by throwing resources at is not the real problem. E.g. some Black communities have a very particular set of problems absent in other communities, for example MUCH higher rate of single-parenthood than in any other community with similar income in the USA. 73% children in Black families are born out of marriage. Clearly, it's a cultural thing. You can't solve these problems by throwing money at them, money actually can make it worse. So we need to have an honest conversation about the real problems our communities are facing instead of following a blanket "all the people are exactly equal, so every group at the bottom of the hierarchy must be discriminated against" approach.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fullshark 8y ago

It's not about rights, which there is no scarcity of, it's about the fact that there's always some social competition for scarce resources (college admissions, jobs, dating opportunities, grants, cultural conversations, etc) and if one group currently has a significant chunk of those they will feel threatened that their share of those resources is being taken away.

the_grue 8y ago

Equity means "equality of outcome". That's another way of saying "look which group is at the bottom of the hierarchy and improve their condition at the expense of those at the top". This is quite the opposite of what we, as a liberal, individualistic society want to achieve - we want equality of opportunity, so that everyone plays the game according to the same rules, but the outcome should be determined by competition, not through quotas or redistribution of goods. Because that's a Marxist way of taking care of problems, and we all know how well that went every single time they tried it.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
That's why I said both. Some groups are making hard stands for calling for equity, and others are calling for equality. I'm refraining on making a judgement call on which one is better, given I'm a tall white male. And the groups demanding this are African Americans who have been wronged by various state policies. I'll refrain from interpreting their meaning, and repeat verbatim. I also think it's disingenuous to claim what "equity" is. This is a common tactic to define a word, and then destroy the stated definition, thus demeaning the original word. And bringing Marxism is guaranteed for a shitstorm..
- the_grue 8y ago
  > I also think it's disingenuous to claim what "equity" is. The definition I gave is the one widely used in academic disciplines such as "black studies", "gender studies", "women studies" and "whiteness studies". I did not invent it. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada) > Some groups are making hard stands for calling for equity I'm not sure which groups are calling for what, but the 20th century experience is clear: Marxism doesn't work. So identity politics should be resisted as much as possible, irrespective of who's calling for it. > And bringing Marxism is guaranteed for a shitstorm.. If I didn't do a very good job of arguing why I consider it Marxism, perhaps Jordan Peterson explains it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqcRVmOpIbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqcRVmOpIbY As to causing a shitstorm - I believe that's inevitable when you have an honest discussion on such an important and divisive topic. That doesn't mean such a discussion should be avoided, on the contrary - the more difficult and divisive the topic is, the more important it is to discuss it openly, so that each side may argue their positions as best as they can and hopefully advance towards solution that works for everyone involved.
apocalypstyx 8y ago
> Because that's a Marxist way of taking care of problems This is so ill-defined as to be useless. If by Marxist we are speaking of what mark (and Engels) wrote, then it must be pointed out Marx was against equality as a metric or measure. And that, contrary to popular belief, he did not originate collectivism and egalitarianism, but heavily critiqued the proponents and thinkers of such that existed in his time. https://anarchopac.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/marx-and-engels-were-not-egalitarians/ https://anarchopac.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/marx-and-engels-... > equality of opportunity Interestingly enough, this is another way of saying no equality at all. That is, the outcome of the competition is, by and large, predetermined. Children born into affluent homes will be sent to better schools, have better tutors, have parents who understand such social systems, and even posses such (seemingly minor, unless we of course want to talk about brain development) advantages as being fed enough nutritious food as to not be hungry. The athlete with access to experts and money and training (and time to spend otherwise not having to earn a living while they train) will outperform the runner who gets in a couple miles after work. (This, of course, extends to everything aspect of business and life. I'm sure there are many people who, if they're parents had had a few extra hundred thousand or million dollars to invest in their child't first few failed businesses, there are a lot of people who could be "successful".) So if we want "equality of opportunity" the first thing we have to do is divorce parents and children in something like Plato's creche. Otherwise we must admit that the system is built not on allowing the meritorious to rise (with whatever definition of meritorious we employ) but instituted by a power class to maintain that same power class. > plays the game When survival is on the line, how is it rational to 'play by the rules'. If someone existed in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, would it be rational to to hand over their family's stock of food on the outcome of a chess game?
- the_grue 8y ago
  > This is so ill-defined as to be useless. The article you linked provides some quotes from Marx and Engels which argue that full equality along all dimensions can never be achieved. But this didn't stop all the implementations of Marxism in real life to still push the equity thing hard. So your argument is actually immaterial. > That is, the outcome of the competition is, by and large, predetermined. I disagree. The Western states have social lifts that are designed to allow people from low-income families to still be able to achieve high positions in society, given talent and hard work. Public schools, state-sponsored higher education, public health care, children services are examples of such lifts. If these systems do not work very well, then we should improve them as opposed to favoring a Black kid at the entry exam of university at the expense of an Asian kid who is just as smart. Because once we start discriminating and making preferences, it's very hard to stop. Especially when the problem we're trying to solve by throwing resources at is not the real problem. E.g. some Black communities have a very particular set of problems absent in other communities, for example MUCH higher rate of single-parenthood than in any other community with similar income in the USA. 73% children in Black families are born out of marriage. Clearly, it's a cultural thing. You can't solve these problems by throwing money at them, money actually can make it worse. So we need to have an honest conversation about the real problems our communities are facing instead of following a blanket "all the people are exactly equal, so every group at the bottom of the hierarchy must be discriminated against" approach.