10 ms·

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

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.

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.