4 ms·
Imagine you are playing a soccer match and there's an unfair referee who gives the other team 30 undeserved goals. You protest and, at the half, they replace th
by antiterra 5y ago
Imagine you are playing a soccer match and there's an unfair referee who gives the other team 30 undeserved goals. You protest and, at the half, they replace the referee with a genuinely fair referee. Is asking for further remedy to make up for those 30 undeserved goals the other team received 'prejudiced?'
Player A joins the match for the other team after the half, but does not have the opportunity to make a goal that puts his team in the lead because the team's score has been adjusted from the unfair treatment. Has Player A been unfairly discriminated against?
Should your team just be happy they are now in a fair meritocracy and just get on with making goals instead of whining?
- marcosdumay 5y agoYes, the one thing you can count on the Real World is for it to be simple and measurable... But let's keep the soccer metaphor. Player A's game is long ended. They won't even play again. But it's a long championship and they are winning. Now your team is on the last round and will tie with them on points if you win, but will lose on the goal-count tie-breaker. Should the referee grant you 30 goals on your game with an entirely different adversary? And your adversary is on the same situation, they will also tie with A's points if they win. Now what should the referee do?
- antiterra 5y agoThe point of the original metaphor isn’t about disadvantage being simple and measurable, it’s simply about it existing and worthy of attention. A solution here is largely academic, and not readily reached due to massive amounts of missing information. However if the question is simply, is it fair for someone to lose first place because the second place categorization was biased? Sure, it definitely can be.