4 ms·

> No. The purpose of social justice is to ensure equal opportunity, not equality per se. Who is the authority on the 'purpose' of social justice? Or is what yo

> No. The purpose of social justice is to ensure equal opportunity, not equality per se. Who is the authority on the 'purpose' of social justice? Or is what you state just your opinion? Perhaps this is just the circles I am around, but there has been increasing insistence on 'equity' by those who purport to be championing social justice. With 'equity' being exclusively determined by looking at distributions of outcomes, not opportunities.

vannevar 4y ago
>Who is the authority on the 'purpose' of social justice? Or is what you state just your opinion? This is a good question, but I would defer to liberal leadership, and their rhetoric consistently refers to equal opportunity. I think a lot of people rely on conservative commentary on "what liberals think" rather than simply reading the original sources. Equity refers to equality of opportunity. See, eg, the official White House executive order regarding racial equity: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action... "Equal opportunity" is literally the first two words of the very first section. You can't ignore outcomes as a useful metric, of course, but the objective is clearly equal opportunity, which will ultimately generate more balanced outcomes naturally.
- dolni 4y ago
  > which will ultimately generate more balanced outcomes naturally. On what do you base this MASSIVE assumption? On the one hand, people who advocate for diversity say that our differences are our strengths. These differences are apparently important enough that workplaces do better with more diversity. But on the other hand, these groups of people who are quite different are expected to just have equal outcomes, for whatever reason. How does that make any damn sense?
  - vannevar 4y ago
    I think maybe you're confused by the definition of equality here. We're not talking about absolute equality of outcomes for everyone. We're talking about equality of outcomes between people of equal ability. For example, if two people of equal ability, one black, one white, have equal opportunity throughout their lives, we would expect that on average they'd end up with roughly equivalent outcomes. (Note that the fact that one can imagine some benign circumstance where that doesn't happen doesn't change the expectation---it's a statistical expectation over the entire population.)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

vannevar 4y ago

>Who is the authority on the 'purpose' of social justice? Or is what you state just your opinion? This is a good question, but I would defer to liberal leadership, and their rhetoric consistently refers to equal opportunity. I think a lot of people rely on conservative commentary on "what liberals think" rather than simply reading the original sources. Equity refers to equality of opportunity. See, eg, the official White House executive order regarding racial equity: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action... "Equal opportunity" is literally the first two words of the very first section. You can't ignore outcomes as a useful metric, of course, but the objective is clearly equal opportunity, which will ultimately generate more balanced outcomes naturally.

dolni 4y ago
> which will ultimately generate more balanced outcomes naturally. On what do you base this MASSIVE assumption? On the one hand, people who advocate for diversity say that our differences are our strengths. These differences are apparently important enough that workplaces do better with more diversity. But on the other hand, these groups of people who are quite different are expected to just have equal outcomes, for whatever reason. How does that make any damn sense?
- vannevar 4y ago
  I think maybe you're confused by the definition of equality here. We're not talking about absolute equality of outcomes for everyone. We're talking about equality of outcomes between people of equal ability. For example, if two people of equal ability, one black, one white, have equal opportunity throughout their lives, we would expect that on average they'd end up with roughly equivalent outcomes. (Note that the fact that one can imagine some benign circumstance where that doesn't happen doesn't change the expectation---it's a statistical expectation over the entire population.)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]