3 ms·

How about just looking at 2 generations. If parents of a child work extra hard, work even weekends to send their child to extra classes, the child therefore has

How about just looking at 2 generations. If parents of a child work extra hard, work even weekends to send their child to extra classes, the child therefore has extra classes and spends more time studying, the parents don't spend all their money and are thrifty, don't move into the largest possible house but save to pay off their mortgage. And they create a better life for their children... Do you still think everyone should have equal opportunities and that child doesn't deserve anything better than someone who's parents didn't give a shit and wasted their lives? Well - to the child, it's obviously unfair if the parents didn't care. But to the parents who worked hard, it's equally unfair to blame the child and say they don't deserve a better life. This whole equity movement seems to always look at the child's perspective (surprise, in this age of childlike narcisim!) and never at the parents perspective, who wants to create a better life for future generations. But it's actually almost equally unfair to someone in both cases. Except in the parents case if you make it completely worthless to try and improve your child's life, you are taking away a large chunk of motivation for almost all people.

oblio 5y ago
> Except in the parents case if you make it completely worthless to try and improve your child's life, you are taking away a large chunk of motivation for almost all people. Ever heard of slippery slopes? You just hit the bottom of the ravine. It's not "completely worthless" to try to improve your child's life and plenty of people have managed to live good lives without going to the absolute best college. Many haven't even finished college. You sound like you'd be very bitter if your kids fail at school, which is not a great place to be in. Plus, what does this say about the other people who are discriminated against daily? You just don't like it that now you have to give the "college talk" to your kids just like fathers of girls have always had to give the "some men are predators" talk to their daughters and African-Americans have had to give the "suicide by cop" talk to their kids.
- cloutchaser 5y ago
  I think you've missed my point. I am just saying that creating a better world for your children is very motivating to a lot of people. Both rich and poor. And if you do that your children will have an advantage over others, just like if statistically you stay together in your marriage your children will have an advantage. Does that mean in the name of equality we should level the playing field for children advantaged by their parents? How will that affect society if you try and nullify the hard work of every parent?
  - oblio 5y ago
    And you're talking about personal responsibility and I was talking about group dynamics. Yes, it sucks for individuals. But as long as you have entire swathes of people discriminated against, personal responsibility is not enough. You need general principles, laws, policies. And yes, laws and policies can be blunt instruments and some people get hurt. Yet we still use them because on aggregate they help us. And no, I don't believe that people will be less motivated to take care of their kids even if they're at a disadvantage. If anything, I'd just make these shadowy ideas in the article actual written policies. "Yes, we only accept new students in proportion to population quotas". People will adapt.
    - cloutchaser 5y ago
      Yeah, I mean that worked out well in the Jim Crow era didn’t it? And yes I know it was for a different group, what you are proposing is creating the same situation but in reverse, over time. Two wrongs make a right?
      - oblio 5y ago
        No, because you can turn that into actually fair (if unpleasant) policies. For example the proportional representation. Just always have it always be proportional, no matter how the distribution changes. That's fair (again, probably unpleasant for some groups).

oblio 5y ago

> Except in the parents case if you make it completely worthless to try and improve your child's life, you are taking away a large chunk of motivation for almost all people. Ever heard of slippery slopes? You just hit the bottom of the ravine. It's not "completely worthless" to try to improve your child's life and plenty of people have managed to live good lives without going to the absolute best college. Many haven't even finished college. You sound like you'd be very bitter if your kids fail at school, which is not a great place to be in. Plus, what does this say about the other people who are discriminated against daily? You just don't like it that now you have to give the "college talk" to your kids just like fathers of girls have always had to give the "some men are predators" talk to their daughters and African-Americans have had to give the "suicide by cop" talk to their kids.

cloutchaser 5y ago
I think you've missed my point. I am just saying that creating a better world for your children is very motivating to a lot of people. Both rich and poor. And if you do that your children will have an advantage over others, just like if statistically you stay together in your marriage your children will have an advantage. Does that mean in the name of equality we should level the playing field for children advantaged by their parents? How will that affect society if you try and nullify the hard work of every parent?
- oblio 5y ago
  And you're talking about personal responsibility and I was talking about group dynamics. Yes, it sucks for individuals. But as long as you have entire swathes of people discriminated against, personal responsibility is not enough. You need general principles, laws, policies. And yes, laws and policies can be blunt instruments and some people get hurt. Yet we still use them because on aggregate they help us. And no, I don't believe that people will be less motivated to take care of their kids even if they're at a disadvantage. If anything, I'd just make these shadowy ideas in the article actual written policies. "Yes, we only accept new students in proportion to population quotas". People will adapt.
  - cloutchaser 5y ago
    Yeah, I mean that worked out well in the Jim Crow era didn’t it? And yes I know it was for a different group, what you are proposing is creating the same situation but in reverse, over time. Two wrongs make a right?
    - oblio 5y ago
      No, because you can turn that into actually fair (if unpleasant) policies. For example the proportional representation. Just always have it always be proportional, no matter how the distribution changes. That's fair (again, probably unpleasant for some groups).