3 ms·

> Then on the other side there seems to be this well-intentioned idea on the left that if we simply give every under-privileged kid opportunity they'll be succe

> Then on the other side there seems to be this well-intentioned idea on the left that if we simply give every under-privileged kid opportunity they'll be successful. I'd be surprised if more than a tiny minority of people actually believe that. It has more to do with believing that ideally, everyone should have access to the same opportunities. It seems rather straightforward and non-controversial that providing more people opportunities to succeed will inevitably lead to more people succeeding, even if only a small minority of people are capable of seizing upon the opportunities they are provided.

qzw 2mo ago
In addition, it really matters when and for how long one has access to opportunities. If you wait until a poor child is an adult and then suddenly say, here’s an amazing opportunity, well, it’s not going to do much good. But if you start when the poor child is in preschool and consistently provide opportunities for learning and growth, then suddenly the likelihood of success goes way up.
rTX5CMRXIfFG 2mo ago
There’s no difference between what you’re saying and what the guy before you is saying. Not sure why you’re drawing lines
- pseudalopex 2mo ago
  More is not every. Small minority is not every.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 2mo ago
    Consequentially there's no difference, you just debated the words
    - atmavatar 2mo ago
      No. The difference is I argue from an ideological standpoint that everyone should receive the same opportunities while acknowledging that only a fraction of people will be able to turn those opportunities into success. I should point out this ideal is core to the very founding of the US: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ...and while we've never fully achieved it, the hope is that we'll continue to push towards that goal. The original quote was a typical conservative dismissal intended to demoralize: since not everyone who's given opportunities will succeed, we shouldn't bother providing opportunity to the riffraff.

qzw 2mo ago

In addition, it really matters when and for how long one has access to opportunities. If you wait until a poor child is an adult and then suddenly say, here’s an amazing opportunity, well, it’s not going to do much good. But if you start when the poor child is in preschool and consistently provide opportunities for learning and growth, then suddenly the likelihood of success goes way up.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 2mo ago

There’s no difference between what you’re saying and what the guy before you is saying. Not sure why you’re drawing lines

pseudalopex 2mo ago
More is not every. Small minority is not every.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 2mo ago
  Consequentially there's no difference, you just debated the words
  - atmavatar 2mo ago
    No. The difference is I argue from an ideological standpoint that everyone should receive the same opportunities while acknowledging that only a fraction of people will be able to turn those opportunities into success. I should point out this ideal is core to the very founding of the US: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ...and while we've never fully achieved it, the hope is that we'll continue to push towards that goal. The original quote was a typical conservative dismissal intended to demoralize: since not everyone who's given opportunities will succeed, we shouldn't bother providing opportunity to the riffraff.