4 ms·

> in the name of equity That's the problem. We're dealing with the critical theory definition of equity, which they define as the intentional redistribution of

> in the name of equity That's the problem. We're dealing with the critical theory definition of equity, which they define as the intentional redistribution of opportunity and resources along identity group lines to correct for present and historical injustices, as well as opportunities those groups have already had. Critical theory and social justice adopts a distorted view of reality. Leave it to a school in San Francisco to show everyone what happens in real life when administrators adopt a policy based on that distorted view of reality -- inequality is only increased. In fact, I'd classify critical theory alongside Marxism for adopting a false belief that some top-down forced redistribution of resources/wealth/opportunity/means of production/etc. is the way to true justice. That kind of belief backfires spectacularly when policy makers adopt it IRL.

vnchr 4y ago
Inequality is increased because those without resources aren’t receiving any new benefits and those with resources use those resources to compensate for the failure of the system to provide an education optimal path. It’s worse outcomes for both, except some people can shield themselves from the fallout. What new kind of self-inflicted damage will be required to realize the detrimental failure of this world view?
- User23 4y ago
  Where do the resources come from? Also, among those who aren’t willfully ignorant, it’s well known that increasing resources increases inequality. The classic example is height: when resources are low everyone is short. But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without.
  - chii 4y ago
    > But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Those who were short didn't fare worse in absolute terms. They only look worse off by comparison.
    - telotortium 4y ago
      That's exactly analogous to SF not offering algebra (for the students without the means to take extracurricular classes, which are disproportionately Black and Hispanic) - none of them get algebra, so they're all worse off in math in the future. With algebra offered, Black and Hispanic students may be less successful on average at algebra than other groups, but at least Black and Hispanic students that can handle algebra get a chance for better math education.
      - TimTheTinker 4y ago
        The gist of it is, there needs to be great opportunities offered without prejudice.
    - MrJohz 4y ago
      In fairness, the issues surrounding height inequality tend to be more about relative height than absolute height. So sure, shorter people can still reach the same physical heights, absolutely speaking, but they are now being judged against a broader spectrum of heights relatively speaking. Which means that they're less likely to succeed at job interviews or in relationships, and therefore end up absolutely worse off than before. Essentially, if something is a zero-sum game (e.g. there are only so many jobs around, if you get a job someone else won't), then even if someone isn't doing worse absolutely, they can still do worse overall relatively speaking. Which isn't to say that we should be giving short people stilts and cutting the legs off tall people, but it's worth recognising that these topics are complex, and even if we're only talking about absolute benefits, people can still lose out relatively speaking.
- ertian 4y ago
  So you figure people should give even more resources, and their children's futures, over to these people who actively hate them and just hope things will work out, despite all evidence to the contrary? My obligation is to my children. I'm happy to entrust them to a system if I have faith in it, or the people running it. If I don't...it would be downright irresponsible.
- firstlink 4y ago
  Well you see we just haven't tried real socialism yet. The wealthy should not be allowed to give any kind of private education including tutors to their kids. And they shouldn't be allowed to interact with their kids at all because that too causes inequity. State boarding schools all around. Then we will achieve a classless society.
  - TimTheTinker 4y ago
    Exactly, that's where this line of reasoning goes. In reality, the political leaders in charge of this societal reordering will themselves become the next upper class, and you can bet with certainty they'll give their own kids the best education and opportunities they can (which will be better than what they offer the masses).
elzbardico 4y ago
It must suck to be poor but not belong to any one the correct identity groups nowadays. I am lucky I was born way before that, or I would never have be able to leave poverty.
- chadcmulligan 4y ago
  Maybe the trick is to remove poverty, it's not hard to do
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ertian 4y ago
    Sarcasm?
    - chadcmulligan 4y ago
      No, not at all, take 10% of the military budget, up the tax right for the high earners and make a better world. Imagine a place where no one had to be scared of living on the street, could get decent food, has access to free education and health care. What a wonderful world. It's totally within our capabilities and no one need suffer. Now I'm not saying it will be a great life but a basic life, it's been proved over and over that the limiting factor for a number of minorities is poverty, so unless you address that first nothing will be solved. Sure some people will abuse it, but think of the kids that will be able to get an education and eat properly, and its just easy.
      - TimTheTinker 4y ago
        > What a wonderful world. It's totally within our capabilities and no one need suffer. I get really scared when I hear anyone promise utopia. Literally every large-scale society that did turned into a hellscape after a while, and the idea itself never worked. There was always someone who didn't buy into the idea, and they were blamed for why it didn't work. "If only those people were gone, then this would work and we'd be happy." So millions die or are sent to the gulag or whatever it's called, and the idea is still not working. China no longer promises its citizens a utopia. All they promise is a country that is powerful on the world stage. They're getting there, but it's still happening via exploitation. And the back alleys of Beijing still ring with abject poverty.
Der_Einzige 4y ago
People will willingly claim that critical theory is not connected to Marxism. We call these people wrong. Marx is literally the godfather of critical theory, the Frankfurt school, post strcturalism and the rest of the fashionable nonsense cannon that parts of the left seem obsessed with.

vnchr 4y ago

Inequality is increased because those without resources aren’t receiving any new benefits and those with resources use those resources to compensate for the failure of the system to provide an education optimal path. It’s worse outcomes for both, except some people can shield themselves from the fallout. What new kind of self-inflicted damage will be required to realize the detrimental failure of this world view?

User23 4y ago
Where do the resources come from? Also, among those who aren’t willfully ignorant, it’s well known that increasing resources increases inequality. The classic example is height: when resources are low everyone is short. But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without.
- chii 4y ago
  > But when resources are plentiful then those with the genes for height tower above those without. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Those who were short didn't fare worse in absolute terms. They only look worse off by comparison.
  - telotortium 4y ago
    That's exactly analogous to SF not offering algebra (for the students without the means to take extracurricular classes, which are disproportionately Black and Hispanic) - none of them get algebra, so they're all worse off in math in the future. With algebra offered, Black and Hispanic students may be less successful on average at algebra than other groups, but at least Black and Hispanic students that can handle algebra get a chance for better math education.
    - TimTheTinker 4y ago
      The gist of it is, there needs to be great opportunities offered without prejudice.
  - MrJohz 4y ago
    In fairness, the issues surrounding height inequality tend to be more about relative height than absolute height. So sure, shorter people can still reach the same physical heights, absolutely speaking, but they are now being judged against a broader spectrum of heights relatively speaking. Which means that they're less likely to succeed at job interviews or in relationships, and therefore end up absolutely worse off than before. Essentially, if something is a zero-sum game (e.g. there are only so many jobs around, if you get a job someone else won't), then even if someone isn't doing worse absolutely, they can still do worse overall relatively speaking. Which isn't to say that we should be giving short people stilts and cutting the legs off tall people, but it's worth recognising that these topics are complex, and even if we're only talking about absolute benefits, people can still lose out relatively speaking.
ertian 4y ago
So you figure people should give even more resources, and their children's futures, over to these people who actively hate them and just hope things will work out, despite all evidence to the contrary? My obligation is to my children. I'm happy to entrust them to a system if I have faith in it, or the people running it. If I don't...it would be downright irresponsible.
firstlink 4y ago
Well you see we just haven't tried real socialism yet. The wealthy should not be allowed to give any kind of private education including tutors to their kids. And they shouldn't be allowed to interact with their kids at all because that too causes inequity. State boarding schools all around. Then we will achieve a classless society.
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  Exactly, that's where this line of reasoning goes. In reality, the political leaders in charge of this societal reordering will themselves become the next upper class, and you can bet with certainty they'll give their own kids the best education and opportunities they can (which will be better than what they offer the masses).

elzbardico 4y ago

It must suck to be poor but not belong to any one the correct identity groups nowadays. I am lucky I was born way before that, or I would never have be able to leave poverty.

chadcmulligan 4y ago
Maybe the trick is to remove poverty, it's not hard to do
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ertian 4y ago
  Sarcasm?
  - chadcmulligan 4y ago
    No, not at all, take 10% of the military budget, up the tax right for the high earners and make a better world. Imagine a place where no one had to be scared of living on the street, could get decent food, has access to free education and health care. What a wonderful world. It's totally within our capabilities and no one need suffer. Now I'm not saying it will be a great life but a basic life, it's been proved over and over that the limiting factor for a number of minorities is poverty, so unless you address that first nothing will be solved. Sure some people will abuse it, but think of the kids that will be able to get an education and eat properly, and its just easy.
    - TimTheTinker 4y ago
      > What a wonderful world. It's totally within our capabilities and no one need suffer. I get really scared when I hear anyone promise utopia. Literally every large-scale society that did turned into a hellscape after a while, and the idea itself never worked. There was always someone who didn't buy into the idea, and they were blamed for why it didn't work. "If only those people were gone, then this would work and we'd be happy." So millions die or are sent to the gulag or whatever it's called, and the idea is still not working. China no longer promises its citizens a utopia. All they promise is a country that is powerful on the world stage. They're getting there, but it's still happening via exploitation. And the back alleys of Beijing still ring with abject poverty.

Der_Einzige 4y ago

People will willingly claim that critical theory is not connected to Marxism. We call these people wrong. Marx is literally the godfather of critical theory, the Frankfurt school, post strcturalism and the rest of the fashionable nonsense cannon that parts of the left seem obsessed with.