Are you more for Equality or Equity?

[Physics-Man]

Equality

Equity

[Mango-man]

Equality because it means everyone got the same opportunity to try climbing a tree. Sure, only the tall one can actually reach it, but that also means that only the small one will be able to fit into a tunnel or go through the next small doors. Everyone had different talents and we can't artificially force painter to do nursing job just because there is some limit on how many painters from certain neighborhood there can be. And I wouldn't want to be operated on by someone who passed the medical school only because of artificial proviliges that "were supposed to give everyone the same reach while ignoring their strengths and weaknesses".

[HighValue]

Equality is good and equity is bad.

Equity means the person that didn't do the work gets the same as someone that did do the work to earn something. Plus the one that did the work got taxed more to pay for the lazy person.

Equality is better because people get the same benefits if they accomplish the same thing.

[Ez-Bri-Z]

The same thing I preach for on this site all the time, equality. I'm not looking for special circumstances for women to be given just to hang with the guys in certain tasks or for men to be given a boost when it comes to tasks women are naturally better at. All I want is either sex to be given the same opportunities to try doing those roles with what they already have without discrimination. If they can't do it as effectively, that's still ok. It forces them to adapt and become a better version of themselves through ingenuity.

[KrisPW]

Equality. And while that tall guy is picking those apples for us, I'll be whipping up the pie crust and we'll all have desert together.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

❣️❣️❣️

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Everyone is great at something.

But if you put a fish in a tree and say it's as good at climbing as a monkey, it's probably gonna have a really bad time.

[Anonymous]

I choose equality but there is a reason for that. Not gonna list why but naturally we as humans have both. I'm not gonna explain how. Don't feel like it. But this is the great dilemma of mankind, in that most do not know. Equity being natural is the great dilemma because the world doesn't know. It is what the Bible tried to teach and they did a great job at it but I rarely meet even a religious person who understands. In fact, non-religious people are more likely to understand. But it is right there in the Bible. You see it in the Bible in the story of David vs Goliath. You see it in real life in the story of America vs Great Britain. The history books missed it.

[Naydyonov]

Equity is somewhat how you structure a family or friendship: each person receives what they need, bringing all to a more or less equal outcome. This can be splitting a pizza (adults get more, kids less), this can be the allocation of couch space.

However, a society cannot be organized around equity.
In a family, the parents distribute their own resources & time to achieve equity of sorts.
In a good friendship, each party voluntarily enters an arrangement (ex: hiking trip, each person carries however much weight they can).
This works because all parties know each other well.

In a society, there only way to achieve equity is through government. Government can only use force to achieve goals, seeing as it has no other ways to hold people accountable. Because you cannot have millions of people voluntarily enter into an arrangement of equity, you can only achieve equity through force.

Thus, best to have equality to opportunity and equality before the law.

[GreenLanternI0I]

I personally believe equity is a lot more fair. Some people need More resources to achieve goal (A), while other people need Less resources to achieve exactly the same goal (A). But, if you use equality method, a person who needed less resources now can reach a much higher goal (A) than a person who needed more resources to achieve exactly the same goal (A) and therefore that automatically creates inequality and from that point on, things will get only worse, since gap between those two people will start growing significantly.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

If A is getting by, and nobody is allowed to keep what they earn to reach a higher goal... How are we going to cure cancer?

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Who's going to design better cars? Better computers?

Or do we just stop all progress because some people are born retarded, and no person should be allowed to cure cancer until the blind one armed mentally retarded kid with no family can cure cancer?

That doesn't make any sense.

Let the first guy achieve A, B, C, D and E. Help the incapable survive and get a place to live.

That will be easier if the capable are allowed to achieve more. Try to teach a guy with no arms to be an average swimmer is a waste of time and money that could be spent by the first guy researching advanced prosthetics.

Your plan is unfair to the capible and actually makes the incapable less likely to achieve their goals.

If the budget is 100, split evenly they each get 50.

If the capible earn and acomplish 1000 they can donate 100 and keep 900. So they are both way better off.

[GreenLanternI0I]

@Lost_in_the_Woods You can't, because there is no incentives, there is no reason to try to be better than somebody else, because you will be forced back down to equality. Neither of those two methods would work if it was either Equity or Equality. You have to use them both and probably something else, otherwise humanity will not be able to evolve and prosper.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I don't know how the picture doesn't help people to understand it better but... 🤷🏼‍♂️

[GreenLanternI0I]

@Lost_in_the_Woods Picture is picture, but reality doesn't work like picture. All humans are different and driven by different things. Whatever system you think be better for humanity, won't work because as I said before all humans are different and want different things. That is just the sad nature of the beast.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Regulated equality in opportunity is not the same as forced equity in outcomes.

I really get sick of arguing about it with people who don't understand.

It's pretty obvious that people were making faster progress when they had the freedom to get ahead Instead of someone taking their resources to try to stop "inequity"

Especially when those people rarely actually give the resources to those who need them and usually just keep them for themselves instead.

[RealMarek]

The problem with equity is the way it works in reality is to make the taller people in the picture stand in a hole until leveling is achieved, overall competence is reduced, and fruit production drops. Equity (equality of outcome) cannot be achieved without tyranny.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I was in school with a 99.9th percentile IQ when VA instituted no child gets behind.

They required the whole class to move at the place of the slowest student.

At the time, we thought they were incompetent idiots. Turns out it was a genius scheme to keep everyone poor and dumb and easy to control while tricking people into thinking they were supporting people who were having a bad time.

They didn't do shit for the dumb kids. All they did was make me suffer with them.

It's a scam. Problem is most people aren't at the top so they just hear "they are giving me a fair chance"

Bullshit. They are taking your chance and mine. The fact that I had a better one than you did is irrelevant when neither one of us is allowed to succeed.

The photo needs to be adjusted so everyone is the height of the short guy.

They stopped me from picking the apples and handing them you. People are so stupid and so greedy they will starve themselves to avoid getting second.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

And that's why we all get to be miserable.

[RealMarek]

@Lost_in_the_Woods That is a good example of the reality.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

It's a reflection of the goal.

The goal isn't to get all three people an apple. The goal is to fool the two who can't reach into helping the government kneecap the guy who can so they get to keep all three.

We didn't call it no child gets behind. It's no child gets ahead. They did absolutely nothing to help the kids who were struggling. They just mandated that nobody could go faster than them.

My highschool science teacher was smart. She sent her kids to private school. She figured out two of us were WAY ahead of the program so she gave us a research assignment and sent us to the library when she was doing stuff we didn't need.

We learned more, and didn't just check out and fall asleep or cause a distraction. Meanwhile, she could set everyone else you with some extra instruction, give them some work to do and help the kids who needed it.

They didn't feel left out or left behind. They got caught up and passed while we got to keep moving forward.

But the government doesn't want that. They want everyone to be too short to reach the apple so they can take the good ones for themselves, then pick and choose who eats.

It's not really about equity. It's all about control.

[RealMarek]

@Lost_in_the_Woods I agree completely.

[Snakeyes7]

I am sick of people using images like that because in reality no one can truly tell how "tall" anyone is so they come up with arbitrary bullshit like race to determine the "height" of the individual which they have no proof of that being the case and usually ends up with everything being more out of balance.

I don't think either is completely possible because there is no "one size fits all" deal so it's better to treat everyone as an individual rather than a collective.

[sunshineglow]

I think he thought about income and opportunities regarding getting out of poverty/financial needs satisfied etc

[Snakeyes7]

@sunshineglow That's fine but that's more on an individual basis not race, sex, whatever. To ensure that someone gets the income they deserve, they make sure they can do what is required of them.

[bolverk]

Equality, always.
'Equity' is one of those things thought up by the academic 'white saviours' in higher education that has no meaning out side of accounting 'equity is the value of an asset less the amount of all liabilities on that asset'. It has nothing to do with how a life is lived.

[Soteris]

They are both useful. For example, Equality is super good for establishing a baseline. As such you can establish that everyone should have the best possible healthcare as a human right. Equity is good for dealing with unfair situations (for lack of better words). For example it is very good with dealing with help for people with disabilities to ensure that they can function in society like a normal person.

[purplepoppy]

It depends on the situation. In the picture equity is the better option because height cannot be helped. But if it was say something that required brain power I'd be against it being dumbed down

[crmoore]

It depends on what it's being employed for, but for anything of any real concern, I'm generally for equality.

That fence example at the ball game is one example in which I'd be okay with equity. But something I'd not be okay with is equity for things like job application, loan forgiveness, medical access. For things like that it should be equality.

[mona_jin]

Equity. People are different, therefore having different needs. Equality means giving everyone a plate of food. Equity means giving and extra serving to those who are hungry. I feel as if equality if based on generalizations and standards that simply don't work for everyone. If you ask me, I'd say it's fairer, although I do agree that it might cause more arguments and disagreements as a result of jealousy.

[Guanfei]

From this pic, equality. Also called equality of opportunity. Starting from the same base, and whatever you get will be based on how much you worked for it.
That gives people a chance to succeed, but at the same time it pushes them to work for it, instead of asking to be given the same as other people who worked more.

[AviatorTom]

I'm treating your use of "Equity" as "Equal Opportunity". All humans should have "Equal Opportunity", regardless of sex, race, religion, or political opinion. That does not mean everyone is equal. For example, men and women are not equal... they have different physical features and different physical abilities.

[Anonymous]

Equality

[MCheetah]

Nice Photoshop job!

[Opinion Owner]

@MCheetah Thanks, it was actually MS Paint.

[FreyaRed]

Equality, same chances for everyone.
Equity is in reality just a nice term for nepotism.

[MCheetah]

Equality. Equity is literally just Communism and only the weak and pathetic support it.

[sunshineglow]

I have literally watched a quite a nice intellectual debate among some very smart kids where exactly opposite was proven. That equity goes with (responsible) capitalism whole equality is rather communist way.

[MCheetah]

@sunshineglow
Okay. What did they say and why is it a "good thing" for individuality to be stripped away from us and for all of us to be treated like interchangeable, valueless, genderless, faceless drones in a machine?

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

They parroted the same leftist narrative about how the poor and black and gay and female don't get a fair chance and the solution is to handicap the straight white rich men so that it will be even.

Because, that way they can keep making billions and even more people will be stuck making $7.25 and giving their lives away to profit the powerful.

I mean, I haven't seen it but that's just an educated guess.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Reputations wasn't set to come from the rich.

The democrats sit there and say the rich don't pay their fair share when they are rich. Zuckerberg spent $400 million to help Biden win on top of social media manipulation. Bill Gates, Bezos, most super rich companies...

But then they want to spend tax money to "help the underprivileged"

But wait, if the rich don't pay their share. . . Where does that come from?

It comes from poor people. Work 60 hours a week, so they take your money, keep most of it, give someone who doesn't work a handout and call it helping the poor.

They aren't trying to help everyone reach the apple. They are trying to make sure only they can. They level everyone down, not up.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

It literally is exactly Communism.

Communism was and is sold on the idea that everyone will get a fair share but we all know that is absolute bullshit. Everyone gets the bare minimum while the government keeps the rest.

[sunshineglow]

@Lost_in_the_Woods yeah, I have a feeling everything is just talk and everything is just fake, which ever system, its just lies, lies. The only truth is that politics has some intrinsic shady system of money/social networks within itself and that it's one dirty bussiness. While you're a regular person outside, you think you'd change something were you in the position of power. But as soon regular person gets there IMMEDIATELY they get changed, because it's impossible to play by the good rules within a corrupt/evil system.
Example : my cousin got into politics, somehow got to be friends with a leader of one party, first thing next, she's becoming leader of the party, first thing what she does as a leader of the party: raises salary RETROACTIVELY FOR 6 MONTHS for herself and that friend former president of the party, so they immediately got huge paycheck. I bet at least part of the money came from tax pay collected budget. First assembly meeting! She used to be such an honest person... So as we can see, you can't survive inside of a mud by playing clean.

[sunshineglow]

The show was actually South Korean, with the best students from various schools. The motion was "Government shall give" universal lowest income " to everyone, to ensure healing of the poverty and financial freedom to those in need, hoping that it would produce enough of savings so that even previously unemployed people could start their small businesses, thus helping the country as a whole. The show is "debate practice", not political show, the point is to handle complex issues with perfect arguments and skilled rhetorics in 5 minutes each speaker. It's additionally harder as they are to be speaking in a foreign language with an advanced vocabulary and they couldn't prepare for the subject, they don't know which topic they will get to discuss prior the show. So they are masterclass trained kids in their debate classes. Anyway.
The kid who got the role of opponent of such idea, said that government needs to come up with strict criteria what is poverty and help exclusively to poor and not give "equal" minimum income provided by the government, to just everyone (apparently this kind of question was debated about in actual Korean government at some point), and even though it's not equal, it will he'll the equality to happen over the time. They are highschool kids, they gave a few false examples quoting (non true) experiences from other countries (out of lack of knowledge /understanding of the systems in those countries) but generally I was impressed with their general knowledge and ability to debate for any point of view, regardless of what they would prefer. Also, I am impressed how both Korean government and these students are highly ethical towards the population, they truly do want to help the poor. But it's Korea, I don't know, maybe their mentality is indeed cleaner, who would know.

[sunshineglow]

* it will he'll = it will help

[dankstranger]

In reality it should be a case by case scenario. In some scenarios equality makes more sense and in others equity should be the choice.

[TadCurious]

I'm for equality of opportunity, not a mandated equality of outcome.

[AngelMegumin]

Neither. Equality is a utopian matter, equity in some cases doesn't allow people to mature and become better in stressful situations by overcoming them.

[joeldalton]

Equity is impossible. And a lot of people are morons on this website based on the voting.

[MCheetah]

A lot of people are morons in general among humanity.

[Anonymous]

Equality. Because that picture is fucking retarded.

[shortster]

Equality, the only way to ensure equity is too make everyone miserable.

[sunshineglow]

Literary these principles are opposite in the reality if you pay attention to what they shall mean. So equality is rather communist and socialist standard.

[shortster]

Equality is libertarian. People are free to succeed and fail on their own merits. Instead of based on the intervention of a governing body like equity does.

[sunshineglow]

Not sure where you are from, but typically US politics thinks differently of this than most of the world. As if there's a different way of interpreting this or that philosophy. Then again, the politics there is too exclusive too. As if there are too harsh cuts and no ability to combine things for the purpose of better solution rather than stubborn one and only one principle... Out of only a principle (which is based on nothing except political party ego- and membership in this party)

[NaultD]

The stronger we build a universal foundation the higher we can build in the future.

[Whatthefluff]

Equality is not always a realistic standard. Equity at least validates and acknowledge this.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Don't know the difference between the two. However, social equality under the law and opportunity is was right and fair and that's what I support.

[genericname85]

Equity, cause equality can't be achieved without massive tyranny, discrimination and opression.

[genericname85]

i'm quite shocked so many people picked equality... goes to show that people are ignorant and uneducated.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I think you have the two reversed?

[genericname85]

@Lost_in_the_Woods no i have not. equality is not achievable without tyranny, discrimination and opression. equity can. we just gotta think about how we're gonna measure that, cause that's certainly not easy.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Equality is what happens when they all stand on the ground.

That doesn't require any government.

Equity is what happens when they cut the tall guys feet off so he can struggle the same as the short guy and the government can keep all the apples.

Equality isn't discrimination. For fucks sake you people are so far over the edge you are upside down and want me to come with you.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Tyranny is telling Bolt he has to slow down because I can't run as fast as he can, while the government flies around in private jets.

Equality is when we start at the same time and he finishes first because he is faster.

Like I said, I think you are genuinely confused about which word means which thing.

[genericname85]

@Lost_in_the_Woods can you maybe contain your childish anger and have a civil discussion here. let me try to understand your concept of equality: what's affirmative action? trying to achieve "equality" or trying to achieve "equity"?

[genericname85]

because i think shit like affirmative action or female quota is bullshit that discriminates people and helps nobody. and i think that's trying to achieve equality. that's why i prefer achieving equity. equity meaning same chances for everyone.

those pictures you see up there don't represent the issue well.

you say inequality needs no government action, which it does, as you see in the picture. 2 out of 3 people die cause they can't reach food. and look on the equity side. you said the legs of the tall ones get cut off, which isn't true. so if you stick with the overly simpliefied picture, at least stick with the facts and don't make up bullshit to make your idea be true.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Look at the photo. Affirmative action is a raised platform to give people who are less qualified more access to a job over a white person.

It's neither one. It's flat out discrimination. Kendi pointed it out himself and realized the facts make him look so stupid he took the tweet down.

I'm sick of being held back so that I can get the same result as someone less talented who makes less effort. That is undoubtedly opression.

It's not my fault I am white. I should be allowed to win if I have the skills and make the effort. But, now they weight the scales so much and literally make rules requiring "minorities" win regardless of effort or results.

Equity means that one guy can sit on his ass while the other climbs the tree and they both get an apple.

Equality is when the guy who does the work gets the reward.

Afirmative action is when they give me no support, no tools, try to make sure the black kid does better than me weather he makes any effort or not and then when I win anyways the take my Apple and give it to a black person who didn't earn it.

It's going back to the Jim Crow days alright. But now the black people get to sit in comfort and collect rewards from white people who actually worked for them.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I don't have anything nice to say about it. It's disgusting and wrong and I'm sick of trying to be polite to people who don't think I deserve a fair chance because of the color of my skin.

That ideology is not worthy of respect.

[genericname85]

@Lost_in_the_Woods ok let me ask you a simple question. i kind of assume you disagree with a tax based societal welfare system but let's just ignore that for a second. so if you were to choose one tax for a given society. would you determine a flat tax ammount everyone has to pay? or would you determine that everyone should pay tax as a percentage of their income?

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

That's not relevant to the previous question at all.

A flat tax usually means everyone pays the same percentage Instead of the percentage increasing as people earn more.

I think it's more complicated than either option. How are you going to tax someone on their income, on the sale of a house and then tax them for owning it? That's three taxes for one transaction and the last one lasts forever.

But in general, between those two options, an equal percentage.

The current bracket system leaves some of us keeping less money than people who earned less than we did. It happened to me and my dad where we did extra work, that put us just barely in the next bracket, so we paid a higher percent and got less than someone who hadn't done as much extra.

My dad took a consulting job, it increased his taxes so much that taking the extra job actually cost him money.

A flat amount wouldn't work. At all. That's already why the rich can break the law as much as they want and the poor might lose their house over a speeding ticket.

A flat percentage seems fair to me. But it would need to include all sources of income like stocks.

But, I still don't see the relevance. An equal percentage is equality.

Equity is taking money from white people who worked to get by and giving it to black people who didn't work so they both make the same. The Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional. It's blatant racial discrimination.

[genericname85]

@Lost_in_the_Woods "A flat percentage seems fair to me." i agree and therefore you're for equity, not equaltiy how i understand it. because a flat ammount of tax would mean equality and a percentage of income would be equity. no further blathering required. it's not necessary to complicate it more, cause that's all we need to understand to see that we agree on a very basic level. you should have made sure you understood me right before unleashing all your negativity.

you're preaching to the choir and fighting windmills. you can do that all day if you want but don't tell me i'm wrong and an idiot, when you agree with me xD that's foolish.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I don't have a problem with the idea of welfare.

But my grandma paid a lot more into social security than she ever got back. Before you even consider inflation.

It's not that I mind everyone paying a little to make sure the guy at the bottom eats. My issue with that is the government takes most of the money for themselves, makes themselves even richer, so they take way more from the guy at the top than it costs to feed the guy at the bottom and the guy at the bottom is still hungry.

That's the problem with "equity"

Communism is a great IDEA, but it doesn't work because there always has to be someone who has control over the system, and they will always end up giving more to themselves than to anyone else.

And on top of that, If there is no difference in the reward for good results and bad results, why would anyone make an effort?

It happened in Amsterdam. They paid for people with no jobs to sit around and smoke weed all day. Sounded awesome and really kind of them until the people with jobs quit and collected the free money instead. Then there was nobody working and nobody paying in so the whole system started to collapse.

So they cut the amount way down, made it less comfortable to be unemployed than it was to earn money and people went back to work.

Equality is rewarding people based on results.

Equity is giving everyone the same reward regardless of their efforts or inputs.

[genericname85]

@Lost_in_the_Woods dude i agree with most of that. i just use the words equality and equity differently than you xD did you still not figure that out?

communism failed to fix a problem that continues to exist in uncontrolled capitalism, which is why we now have some sort of socialism, cause pure capitalism will cause periodical societal collapses, while communism and even socialism fails at the corruptibility of humans. that's why we have this sort of awkward system that's a more or less controlled capitalist system.

i believe if you give everyone the same chances, meaning for example: everyone that delivers a certain performance in school can enter university (independend of their color and financial backround), we'll have the best possible society. wenn i say equality, i don't mean that the deadbeat lazy asshole should get the same money as someone who works 80 hours a week in a ceo job. cause that would be equality and equality is bad.

does my opinion now make more sense to you?

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Tyrany is paying for a black person with bad grades to go to college, giving him special help so it's easier for him to pass... Then hiring him to do a job he isn't as good at as the white guy who paid full price, did all the work, and is better at the job.

Imagine if it was turned around. It's blatant racism.

Black people aren't born different. We are all born equal. Not all white people are born rich. I wasn't. So why do I have to pay more, work harder, and do better to get a smaller reward because I'm white?

That's afirmative action. It's racist and it's wrong and we all know that.

It's not actually designed to help black people. It's designed to stop anyone from getting ahead by putting under qualified candidates in high paid positions so the overall results of the company will be less, and the people who use resources well won't have them to build and develop new ways to be independent and not have to reply on the government.

Why hire a lazy unqualified person over a hard-working qualified one? Skin color has nothing to do with it.

It's a scam. They say its about helping black people because we all agree racism is bad. But the result is white people can't win even when they deserve to. They pay more for school, work harder, and have to get better results for a lower salary than the black guy who sat around and just barely scraped by.

That isn't equity or equality. That is taking from the opressed to give to the lazy.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

No doubt some black people deserve it, but they should find someone to hire them based on merritt or start their own company. Plenty of black people own buisneses. So the narrative that a black person with equal credentials can't get a good job is a lie. There are black buisness owners. They aren't discriminating against black people.

But now everyone is legally required to discriminate against white people or pay a fine. It's not equality. It's not equity. That is just straight up the opposite of both. It's called racist discrimination.

[genericname85]

when i say equity, i think that we should be ok with inequalities existing. cause for example women on average don't choose to have a high profile, high income carreer. so therefore trying to make them equal would be bad. but they should have the same chances and not be excluded if that's what they happen to choose for themself just cause they're women xD

[genericname85]

ugh sorry made a vital mistake that ruins everything: "wenn i say EQUITY, i don't mean that the deadbeat lazy asshole should get the same money as someone who works 80 hours a week in a ceo job. cause that would be equality and equality is bad."***

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I think you have the definitions reversed.

Equality is when everyone starts at the same place and gets rewarded based on their results.

Equity is when some people start on a platform and some people start in a hole so that the guy who gets the most done ends up at the same place as the guy who gets the least done.

Look at the photo.

But the problem with equity in real life is they don't build a platform so the short guy can get an apple. They either hold the tall guy down so he can be just as short, or take half of his apple to give it to the short guy.

Or in the case of affirmative action, they take the whole thing.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I agree with your stance that everyone should start at the same place and get the same chance. That's equality. Not Equity.

I think you have the two mixed up. Genuinely. From what you are saying I agree that it's a question of the definitions and I think that is the disconnect.

But I explain it this way. Very simply.

If I'm playing basketball against Kobe Bryant and it's a fair game... He will win every time. That's equality.

If I'm playing basketball against Kobe Bryant and we get the same score... That is obviously not a fair game. That's Equity.

If I'm playing basketball against Kobe Bryant and I get the trophy because they only counted baskets for me "to make it fair because I am not as good at basketball"... Kobe was obviously discriminated against and cheated out of his trophy. That's Afirmative Action.

[genericname85]

we totally agree on most things dude xD i specifically asked you the affirmative action question, cause i figured we have a missunderstanding about our meanings of equity/equality. we both completely agree that nobody should have an unfair advantage just cause they are a certain ethnicity or whatever. BUT everyone should have a fair shot IF they show that they can perform. that is my understanding of equity. i want a level playing field, in which someone from a poor family can go up the ranks by performing and someone from a rich family can go down the ranks if they're a fucking slacker.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

But honestly, I don't like to argue about it anymore.

People have no idea what it's like to be smart and be put on the bench, unable to afford food or rent or doctors visits because they wanted a black person with lower grades to get the job instead.

It's not helping him. He's going to go out and crash the truck because they still didn't make any effort to actually help him and prepare him for the job.

But shit, I would rather be bad at it. At least then I could try harder. But I can't try to be blacker.

That is racism. People don't get what that is like. It's like applying to McDonald's and they say "sorry, you are over qualified"

Like shit. . . If I was worse at this I would be able to afford to eat. If I was too bad at it to get the job I could try to Improve. But I guess I'm going to starve because they don't want to let white people win no matter how hard we work or how well we do.

That's Jim Crow 2.0.

And it's never been about race. It's about holding everyone down.

I want to get the CDL so I can afford to build prototype houses I think I can sell for $20-30k to help poor people get out of the rent loop. They threw me out without a reason and passed a class that was over 2/3's black when I was CLEARLY the most successful and the best at it.

Literally didn't give me a reason. But I know what it is. They don't want me to build houses for poor people. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with keeping people stuck paying rent.

They cut the tall guy's legs off so he can't reach the apples and share them with the short guy. And that way, the government gets all three while the short guy and the middle guy help them kneecap the tall guy thinking it's in their best interest.

People are dumb. They are being taken advantage of. Racism isn't real in 2021. It's a tool being used to stop anyone from getting ahead.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

See my other comment about no child left behind. (Or as we more accurately call it, no child gets ahead)

They don't help the short guy get the apple. They stop the tall guy and say it's to make things fair.

Instead of all having an equal chance, we all have no chance and the government keeps all the apples.

It makes me angry, because we could all have an apple if we supported the tall guy who could reach them. Instead we all fight over the rotten ones when they fall. And I don't like to hurt others so I usually get fucking nothing when I could have done it all by myself.

It makes me angry. And disgusted. And I don't have anything nice to say about it anymore.

[genericname85]

@Lost_in_the_Woods well you know i'm in social sciences xD and if you'd actually lookat all the inequalities across society some of those inequalities are inequities and some are not.

so for example as i said. women on average decide that they do not want a high profile career. therefore on average will earn less. that's not an inequity but it is an inequality. so i don't think there's any "governing" necessary there.

and then we see that black families usually don't have the money to allow their child to do to college, even though their child ""may" be able to show the necessary performance. that is inequality AND inequity, so i thik there's some governing necessary there.

so there is a balance to be struck that i call equity. it means certain inequalities actually should exist but in order to achieve equality, "leveling the playing field" has to be done.

that can mean that for example a black kid from a poor family gets financial support from the government so they can go to college IF and only IF they show the necessary performance.

i do not at all mean that we should basically tell Asians and some whites to piss off, cause there's too many high performing Asians and too many whites in general just so we can let some low performing black people in. it should still all be a matter of performance. but the playing field should be level.

[genericname85]

@Lost_in_the_Woods ah fuck it. i'm tired of pointless discussion xD this is the most convoluted and dissatisfying agreement i ever had with anyone. i'm out. see ya.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

We generally agree.

You are genuinely mixing the two up.

Women making less because they choose lower paid careers is inequity. It's not unequality.

I think we have the same stance we are just using the words vise versa.

I'm pretty sure I'm right about which is which but that honestly doesn't matter. I think we agree on the principals. Our only disagreement is which word is which.

But like I said, that isn't important. The principals are. And I think you are right about those.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

*inequality. Not unequality. I don't know why that is even an autocorrect option.

[lottiebannotie]

Equality I get my own equity

[TheAfrikan]

Equality for all no shit for Equity.

[BrosephBrostar]

Neither. I'm for liberty.

[Leonharted]

Definitely Equality.

[BarryLiverstone]

Equal opportunities

[Jamie05rhs]

Equality. 100%.