6 ms·

Never thought I’d live to see the day where people would unironically call equity dogma. But here we are. What a sad state of affairs.

cloutchaser 4y ago
Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society. If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking. (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all for it. But equity is certainly not that).
- adrianN 4y ago
  A charitable interpretation of what you call modern dogma is that people acknowledge that we're not all the same (that's what diversity is about, I think), but that the differences aren't predicted by gender or race or culture or whatever. That is of course also not very compatible with LotR.
  - cloutchaser 4y ago
    If they're not predicted by gender or race, then why do companies need 50% women? The very fact that that is a goal, means you do not believe these aren't predicted by race or gender, but that they are, and if you don't have 50% employees you are discriminating. Of course the people in favour also say what you just said, which just shows how completely conflicting their views are.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      I guess either not everybody follows my charitable interpretation, or they try to counteract supposed systemic biases by introducing quotas.
  - insickness 4y ago
    Any two groups of people classified by "gender or race or culture or whatever" will have different outcomes. Italians and Irish will have different incomes, representations in corporations, etc. The dogma is to say that all differences can be ascribed to systemic injustice.
- resoluteteeth 4y ago
  > Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results. > This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society. > If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking. Equity is something that societies create, not an assertion about people's innate abilities or a statement of fact about the universe. For example, we make buildings handicapped accessible rather than simply declaring that all people are able to walk. > (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all for it. But equity is certainly not that). Perhaps it would be illustrative to show that you could actually make the exact same rhetorical sleight of hand about "equality of opportunity": "Equity of opportunity means you believe every person is equal in their opportunity. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in opportunity in society." This is clearly silly because "equality of opportunity" is a goal you are aspiring to rather than a statement of fact about current society, but the same applies to "equity." You could also say the same thing about "justice" or any other concept that's not actually a statement of fact about society. I'm actually not sure where the idea that "equity" is an assertion that outcomes are equal as a matter of fact comes from. It doesn't seem to be a definition that is used anywhere except when people are trying to make this argument that "equity" is obviously absurd and therefore we should abandon it and focus on "equality of opportunity." Note that this is completely separate from any argument about to what degree we should attempt to achieve "equity" versus "equality of opportunity"; it is simply an issue with this argument using a dubious definition of "equity" to show that "equity" is obviously absurd being a bad argument.
  - tester756 4y ago
    I believe the difference is "Everyone will be working highest paid jobs" vs "Everyone can have highest paid jobs (if they put effort)" You can't make people go for highest paid jobs, but you can definitely let them decide if they're interested in trying to get them.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Too much equity can be a bad thing, but you don't go around saying drinking water is bad b/c too much of it will harm you.
rglullis 4y ago
What other word would you describe when people cry over "lack of diversity" when the story is set in a fantasy world that did not have such type of diversity to begin with?
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I love how it's fine for there to be dragons and magic in fantasy. But minorities? That's a bridge too far.
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    Tolkien wrote from a perspective of what he experienced. That being early to mid 1900s england. Which simply didn't have many nonwhite people. Also, I think most aren't actually opposed to minorities being in the show, but rather the hamfisted way they think theyll be included with. (I personally expect racism being a big part of the show that will need to be fought.)
    - rsynnott 4y ago
      > That being early to mid 1900s england. Not that I think this is _particularly_ relevant (as mentioned elsewhere, most of the characters aren't even _human_, and it's not like he generally specified "but if they _were_ humans, the Ringwraiths would definitely be white"), but LoTR was finished in 1949. There were lots of non-white people in the UK in 1949; if you've heard of the Windrush scandal, the people impacted by that arrived the year before, and it's not like they were the first non-white people in the UK...
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      > I personally expect racism being a big part of the show that will need to be fought. I agree that this would be extremely hamfisted. Especially considering the books already have some metaphors for racism like the strained relationship between elves and dwarves. However, I also think this kind of a thing is just a symptom of bad writing - not some woke conspiracy.
  - 4y ago
bradleyjg 4y ago
This usage of equity is, what, five years old? Does something that new really call for an “I never thought I’d live to see the day”?
- rglullis 4y ago
  I think that OP is not objecting to the usage of "equity" but its association with "dogma".
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    It’s a good sign that something is dogma when emotions run very high over exact word choices. For example there were huge controversies in the fourth century over homoousion (“same in essence”) vs homoiousios (“similar essence”). Reminds me of equity vs equality.
tomp 4y ago
Equity is a deeply evil ideology. The only way to achieve equality of outcome is to repress the out-performers. Promoters of this dogma of course deny that, but the result is inevitably always the same. [0] [0] Vancouver School Board cuts honours programs https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-school-board-cuts-honours-program-1.6068578 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-sc...
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  They didn't really cut it, they renamed it. AP classes, independent study, and dedicated schools for high-performing students, rather than just individual classes in the main schools. https://vansd.org/highly-capable-services/ https://vansd.org/highly-capable-services/
  - tomp 4y ago
    bad example, but there are tons of others https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curriculum-guidelines.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric... "The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school"
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      You should read that article a bit more. > The model has been in place since 2014, yielding a few years of data on retention and diversity that has been picked over by experts on both sides of the de-tracking debate. And while the data is complicated by numerous variables — a pandemic now among them — those who support San Francisco’s model say it has led to more students, and a more diverse set of students, taking advanced courses, without bringing down high achievers. > California’s recommendations aim to expand the options for high-level math, so that students could take courses in, say, data science or statistics without losing their edge on college applications. (The move requires buy-in from colleges; in recent years, the University of California system has de-emphasized the importance of calculus credits.)
- 4y ago
xdennis 4y ago
I think it's because "equity" is a code word used by people who think equality is bad.

cloutchaser 4y ago

Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society. If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking. (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all for it. But equity is certainly not that).

adrianN 4y ago
A charitable interpretation of what you call modern dogma is that people acknowledge that we're not all the same (that's what diversity is about, I think), but that the differences aren't predicted by gender or race or culture or whatever. That is of course also not very compatible with LotR.
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  If they're not predicted by gender or race, then why do companies need 50% women? The very fact that that is a goal, means you do not believe these aren't predicted by race or gender, but that they are, and if you don't have 50% employees you are discriminating. Of course the people in favour also say what you just said, which just shows how completely conflicting their views are.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    I guess either not everybody follows my charitable interpretation, or they try to counteract supposed systemic biases by introducing quotas.
- insickness 4y ago
  Any two groups of people classified by "gender or race or culture or whatever" will have different outcomes. Italians and Irish will have different incomes, representations in corporations, etc. The dogma is to say that all differences can be ascribed to systemic injustice.
resoluteteeth 4y ago
> Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results. > This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society. > If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking. Equity is something that societies create, not an assertion about people's innate abilities or a statement of fact about the universe. For example, we make buildings handicapped accessible rather than simply declaring that all people are able to walk. > (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all for it. But equity is certainly not that). Perhaps it would be illustrative to show that you could actually make the exact same rhetorical sleight of hand about "equality of opportunity": "Equity of opportunity means you believe every person is equal in their opportunity. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in opportunity in society." This is clearly silly because "equality of opportunity" is a goal you are aspiring to rather than a statement of fact about current society, but the same applies to "equity." You could also say the same thing about "justice" or any other concept that's not actually a statement of fact about society. I'm actually not sure where the idea that "equity" is an assertion that outcomes are equal as a matter of fact comes from. It doesn't seem to be a definition that is used anywhere except when people are trying to make this argument that "equity" is obviously absurd and therefore we should abandon it and focus on "equality of opportunity." Note that this is completely separate from any argument about to what degree we should attempt to achieve "equity" versus "equality of opportunity"; it is simply an issue with this argument using a dubious definition of "equity" to show that "equity" is obviously absurd being a bad argument.
- tester756 4y ago
  I believe the difference is "Everyone will be working highest paid jobs" vs "Everyone can have highest paid jobs (if they put effort)" You can't make people go for highest paid jobs, but you can definitely let them decide if they're interested in trying to get them.
roflyear 4y ago
Too much equity can be a bad thing, but you don't go around saying drinking water is bad b/c too much of it will harm you.

rglullis 4y ago

What other word would you describe when people cry over "lack of diversity" when the story is set in a fantasy world that did not have such type of diversity to begin with?

AlexandrB 4y ago
I love how it's fine for there to be dragons and magic in fantasy. But minorities? That's a bridge too far.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  Tolkien wrote from a perspective of what he experienced. That being early to mid 1900s england. Which simply didn't have many nonwhite people. Also, I think most aren't actually opposed to minorities being in the show, but rather the hamfisted way they think theyll be included with. (I personally expect racism being a big part of the show that will need to be fought.)
  - rsynnott 4y ago
    > That being early to mid 1900s england. Not that I think this is _particularly_ relevant (as mentioned elsewhere, most of the characters aren't even _human_, and it's not like he generally specified "but if they _were_ humans, the Ringwraiths would definitely be white"), but LoTR was finished in 1949. There were lots of non-white people in the UK in 1949; if you've heard of the Windrush scandal, the people impacted by that arrived the year before, and it's not like they were the first non-white people in the UK...
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    > I personally expect racism being a big part of the show that will need to be fought. I agree that this would be extremely hamfisted. Especially considering the books already have some metaphors for racism like the strained relationship between elves and dwarves. However, I also think this kind of a thing is just a symptom of bad writing - not some woke conspiracy.
- 4y ago

bradleyjg 4y ago

This usage of equity is, what, five years old? Does something that new really call for an “I never thought I’d live to see the day”?

rglullis 4y ago
I think that OP is not objecting to the usage of "equity" but its association with "dogma".
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  It’s a good sign that something is dogma when emotions run very high over exact word choices. For example there were huge controversies in the fourth century over homoousion (“same in essence”) vs homoiousios (“similar essence”). Reminds me of equity vs equality.

tomp 4y ago

Equity is a deeply evil ideology. The only way to achieve equality of outcome is to repress the out-performers. Promoters of this dogma of course deny that, but the result is inevitably always the same. [0] [0] Vancouver School Board cuts honours programs https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-school-board-cuts-honours-program-1.6068578 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-sc...

ceejayoz 4y ago
They didn't really cut it, they renamed it. AP classes, independent study, and dedicated schools for high-performing students, rather than just individual classes in the main schools. https://vansd.org/highly-capable-services/ https://vansd.org/highly-capable-services/
- tomp 4y ago
  bad example, but there are tons of others https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curriculum-guidelines.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric... "The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school"
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    You should read that article a bit more. > The model has been in place since 2014, yielding a few years of data on retention and diversity that has been picked over by experts on both sides of the de-tracking debate. And while the data is complicated by numerous variables — a pandemic now among them — those who support San Francisco’s model say it has led to more students, and a more diverse set of students, taking advanced courses, without bringing down high achievers. > California’s recommendations aim to expand the options for high-level math, so that students could take courses in, say, data science or statistics without losing their edge on college applications. (The move requires buy-in from colleges; in recent years, the University of California system has de-emphasized the importance of calculus credits.)
4y ago

xdennis 4y ago

I think it's because "equity" is a code word used by people who think equality is bad.