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.
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.
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)
@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 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"?
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.
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.
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.
@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?
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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
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."***
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
26Opinion
Equality, the only way to ensure equity is too make everyone miserable.
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.
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.
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)
The stronger we build a universal foundation the higher we can build in the future.
Equality is not always a realistic standard. Equity at least validates and acknowledge this.
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.
Equity, cause equality can't be achieved without massive tyranny, discrimination and opression.
i'm quite shocked so many people picked equality... goes to show that people are ignorant and uneducated.
I think you have the two reversed?
@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.
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.
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.
@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"?
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.
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.
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.
@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?
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.
@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.
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.
@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?
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.
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.
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
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."***
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
*inequality. Not unequality. I don't know why that is even an autocorrect option.
Equality I get my own equity
Equality for all no shit for Equity.
Neither. I'm for liberty.
Definitely Equality.
Equal opportunities
Equality. 100%.