3 ms·
Anyone else notice the whole 's/equality/equity/' change that was broadly yet quietly slipped into mainstream society a couple years ago thinking that no one wo
by assttoasstmgr 4y ago
Anyone else notice the whole 's/equality/equity/' change that was broadly yet quietly slipped into mainstream society a couple years ago thinking that no one would notice? We somehow memory holed equality of opportunity and replaced it with equality of outcomes (equity) nearly overnight, with all media and corporate communications switching over their newspeak lexicon in unison. What's most interesting about the whole "equity" argument is the groupthink around the official list of who is and isn't marginalized, because my wholly unscientific observation is there is quite an understated effort to exclude East Asians and Indians from the equity club. My guess is their cultures have been deemed "too successful" or exhibiting characteristics (such as emphasis on education and family) contrary to the goals of this social engineering. Stuff like this is what stokes division in society and unfortunately I don't see this ending well.
- solenoidalslide 4y agoIf you are referring to the US, it's more because of the proportional treatment of indigenous, Hispanic, and black people by the government, historically speaking. Not because a particular group is too successful. For example, if you read about the history of the Trail of Tears and slavery, those were long-term instances of oppression to specific groups. Not that Indians or East Asians haven't had periods of poor treatment, but the government had a hand in making it almost impossible for the aforementioned groups to accumulate wealth or property in America over the centuries. If you look at the reason why Title IX exists, it is not because "men are too successful", if that makes sense.
- klipt 4y ago> replaced it with equality of outcomes Not consistently. If you point out there are outcomes where "minorities" do better, e.g. women living longer than men on average, and suggest we fix this by e.g. spending more government funding on men's health research, suddenly the "pro-equality" people try to change the topic, or claim that the difference is "biological" and therefore shouldn't be meddled with (an attitude they would of course call sexist if the advantage were in the other direction).
- unclebucknasty 4y agoCould it be that you're mistaking actual equality of opportunity as equality of outcomes?
- teakettle42 4y agoNo, it couldn’t, and your argument suffers from the same “sophistic collapse” as the study.
- unclebucknasty 4y agoWell mine was a question, not an argument. But, please feel free to point to the sophistry in the study. Where's the flaw?
- native_samples 4y agoThis didn't start a couple of years ago, lol! Re-defining equality as equality of outcome in order to obtain power is a trick that dates back at least as far as Marx and probably much further.