4 ms·
If, at population level, you don't have equality of outcome, then either you don't have equality of opportunity or 'there is something fundamentally wrong' with
by somewhereoutth 3y ago
If, at population level, you don't have equality of outcome, then either you don't have equality of opportunity or 'there is something fundamentally wrong' with whichever population is failing - which I'm sure we can agree is not the case.
We should not force equality of outcome, but we should observe it and use it as a guide to whether or not we are being successful in providing equality of opportunity.
- soundnote 3y agoFor population level differences to be proof of discrimination, you'd have to presume the sameness of background/culture, spread of abilities and spread of interests, which is absurd on its face.
- dcow 3y agoThis only holds under a homogenous monoculture. What if some population doesn't value success the same way as another? You’ll see variance of outcomes for completely normal and acceptable reasons.
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoThat’s just false. One doesn’t follow from the other.
- huuman1212 3y ago[dead]
- TexanFeller 3y ago> If, at population level, you don't have equality of outcome, then either you don't have equality of opportunity or 'there is something fundamentally wrong' with whichever population is failing Do Indian people massively disproportionately own hotels because other ethnic groups don't have the same opportunities? Is there something fundamentally wrong with non hotel owning ethnic groups? It's not systemic Indian supremacy, it's just historical accidents compounded through network effects. Noticeable differences between populations frequently occur by random chance, they're usually evidence of nothing at all.