6 ms·
Well, then every privileged person who gets in is "hurting" someone of lesser inherent opportunity. They can use that privilege to spread their applications ar
by jachee 7y ago
Well, then every privileged person who gets in is "hurting" someone of lesser inherent opportunity.
They can use that privilege to spread their applications around to increase their opportunities.
- GhostVII 7y agoSure, and every non-privileged person who gets in also hurts others who are in the same situation, since they have taken up a spot. The difference is in this case there is an actual policy which is actively punishing people for being in a perceived state of privilege.
- jachee 7y agoPunishing those in privilege is how you achieve equality. They can't give up that inequality voluntarily, and wouldn't if they could.
- GhostVII 7y agoYou can also give resources to those who aren't in privilege so they are able to succeed academically, and don't need to have their admission average artificially lowered.
- fzeroracer 7y agoGiving resources is also a zero-sum game. When you're giving more resources to those that aren't privileged, you are in effect denying those same resources for those that are. For example, school admissions. We can provide more funding for underperforming schools, but that is also less funding going towards better performing schools. At a certain point you will have to accept that to help the poor it will mean cutting off certain benefits for more well-off. Then the discussion becomes around how much resources should be shifted around.
- remote_phone 7y agoNo. If I can afford to provide my own resources, I’m okay with this. Just like I’m okay paying for social security but not receiving any when I retire. Those that have more resources can afford to take less than those that don’t have enough resources themselves. What I’m not okay with is adjusting scores and denying opportunity because of economic class warfare.
- jachee 7y agoYou seem to be in the minority in that regard. Those that have more resources have historically spent significant amounts of those resources to ensure that they pay in as little of them to anyone else as possible.
- wanderer2323 7y agoEquality of outcome, which should be avoided as much as possible.
- equalarrow 7y agoWow... And there you go.
- jm__87 7y agoThis logic is ridiculous. No one should be punished, how about that?
- svd4anything 7y agoWow punishing those in privilege creates equality. The logic “progressive” american politics is pursuing is truly scary and broken. Hating the rich is hate. If you really loved the poor you would think how to help them lift themselves up. Holding down the top both doesn’t work and is deeply unethical. College board should provide free tutoring and review classes based of their adversity score instead. I can’t image this scheme won’t be challenged in courts. Especially the keeping secret the score, imagine if your credit score was kept secret and this will effect their lives more than credit score. As I have said in other comments, next we need an Unattractiveness Score as we know physical traits have high correlation and causation to success and wealth, clearly a privilege and creating inequality. Tax credits for the ugly. Mandatory minor face disfigurement for the overly beautiful or handsome. Very scary developments. America is under true threat to its future with this politics.
- jachee 7y ago>If you really loved the poor you would think how to help them lift themselves up I know! Let's give them a bit of advantage in getting an education. Oh, wait.
- snaggletooth 7y agoDoes anyone honestly believe the only way to provide that advantage is to fake their score? That kind of lazy thinking is what needs an adversity score to be considered good.
- succleaf 7y agoWelcome to the Monkey House HARRISON BERGERON by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213 th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General. https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Berge...
- snaggletooth 7y agoSo if you make $125k/yr and I make $75k/yr, equality can only exist if you give me 25k? Should America all just average our salaries and call it a day?
- jachee 7y agoIf I made $125k a year, that'd be almost double my current salary. I could spare the $25k, then, if you were struggling. Could you do the same in the reverse situation?
- remote_phone 7y agoDo you donate your extra money to charity or do you save some for your future? If you have the privilege of being able to save some money for your future, shame on you! There are people starving and you’re amassing your wealth?
- jachee 7y agoWhat is "Extra Money?" I'm doing my best not to drown in debt. I've calculated it, and I can retire when I'm 142.
- commandlinefan 7y agoI think you'd be shocked how many people in America actually do think that's a good idea.
- pathseeker 7y ago>Punishing those in privilege is how you achieve equality. Tall poppy syndrome. Destroying things does not create things. You can drop a nuclear bomb on silicon valley and punish lots of privilege. It's not going to achieve any notion of equality.
- jachee 7y agoNot talking about destruction. Only redistribution.