Equity is not Equality

[Lastamender]

Biden's Culture War Aggression

He may have needlessly crippled his chances for lowering the temperature already.

andrewsullivan.substack.com

In critical theory, as James Lindsay explains, “‘equality’ means that citizen A and citizen B are treated equally, while ‘equity’ means adjusting shares in order to make citizen A and B equal.” Here’s how Biden defines “equity”: “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

In less tortured English, equity means giving the the named identity groups a specific advantage in treatment by the federal government over other groups — in order to make up for historic injustice and “systemic” oppression. Without “equity”, the argument runs, there can be no real “equality of opportunity.” Equity therefore comes first. Until equity is reached, equality is postponed — perhaps for ever.

Does everyone understand that? If you do, why would you want it? Just curious. This should be good.

 

[Moonglow]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

 

[pknopp]

But Joe Biden has also shown this week that his other ambitions are much more radical. On immigration, he is way to Obama’s left, proposing a mass amnesty of millions of illegal immigrants, a complete moratorium on deportations, and immediate revocation of the bogus emergency order that allowed Trump to bypass Congress and spend money building his wall. Fine, I guess. But without very significant addition of border controls as a deterrent, this sends a signal to tens of millions in Central to South America to get here as soon as possible. Biden could find, very quickly, that the “unity” he preaches will not survive such an effectively open-borders policy, or another huge crisis at the border. He is doubling down on the very policies that made a Trump presidency possible. In every major democracy, mass immigration has empowered the far right. Instead of easing white panic about changing demographics, Biden just intensified it.

The argument contradicts itself. They note that Obama was status quo on immigration but that lead to Trump getting elected? No it didn't.

Now if one wants to argue that doing nothing will encourage the "right", fine argue that but I will argue that is exactly what Trump did.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Biden's Culture War Aggression

He may have needlessly crippled his chances for lowering the temperature already.

andrewsullivan.substack.com

In critical theory, as James Lindsay explains, “‘equality’ means that citizen A and citizen B are treated equally, while ‘equity’ means adjusting shares in order to make citizen A and B equal.” Here’s how Biden defines “equity”: “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

In less tortured English, equity means giving the the named identity groups a specific advantage in treatment by the federal government over other groups — in order to make up for historic injustice and “systemic” oppression. Without “equity”, the argument runs, there can be no real “equality of opportunity.” Equity therefore comes first. Until equity is reached, equality is postponed — perhaps for ever.

Does everyone understand that? If you do, why would you want it? Just curious. This should be good.

Equality is my ex-coworker and I both having the opportunity to buy a house that we could pay off over the course of our careers so we would have our retirement funds free from housing costs. Equity is me sacrificing to pay for my house, my ex-coworker buying new cars and taking expensive vacations and then expecting to have his retirement funds supplemented so that he could enjoy the same quality of life that I sacrificed to achieve. That's a real world example. One of my ex-coworkers was complaining that I could now afford nice cars and a affluent lifestyle because I no longer had to pay rent or mortgage like he did. The funny thing is that I advised him over twenty years ago to buy a house of condo so he wouldn't have rent to pay after he retired and he ridiculed me at the time saying that a mortgage was "a waste of money".

 

[AZrailwhale]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity of outcome isn't fair to those who work hard for success. It's like having two employees, one works twenty hours a week and the other works forty hours a week getting paid the same amount of money for a week's work.

 

[Moonglow]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity of outcome isn't fair to those who work hard for success. It's like having two employees, one works twenty hours a week and the other works forty hours a week getting paid the same amount of money for a week's work.

I doubt very seriously that is their plan.

 

[danielpalos]

Biden's Culture War Aggression

He may have needlessly crippled his chances for lowering the temperature already.

andrewsullivan.substack.com

In critical theory, as James Lindsay explains, “‘equality’ means that citizen A and citizen B are treated equally, while ‘equity’ means adjusting shares in order to make citizen A and B equal.” Here’s how Biden defines “equity”: “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

In less tortured English, equity means giving the the named identity groups a specific advantage in treatment by the federal government over other groups — in order to make up for historic injustice and “systemic” oppression. Without “equity”, the argument runs, there can be no real “equality of opportunity.” Equity therefore comes first. Until equity is reached, equality is postponed — perhaps for ever.

Does everyone understand that? If you do, why would you want it? Just curious. This should be good.

Not sure why anyone should believe equity means favoritism. The only reason we have this dilemma in the first place is because right wingers are not moral enough to faithfully execute our own supreme law of the land.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[Lastamender]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because their situation is being determined by somebody else, most likely un- elected spineless sycophant. Something for nothing is never a good idea.

 

[Lastamender]

Biden's Culture War Aggression

He may have needlessly crippled his chances for lowering the temperature already.

andrewsullivan.substack.com

In critical theory, as James Lindsay explains, “‘equality’ means that citizen A and citizen B are treated equally, while ‘equity’ means adjusting shares in order to make citizen A and B equal.” Here’s how Biden defines “equity”: “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

In less tortured English, equity means giving the the named identity groups a specific advantage in treatment by the federal government over other groups — in order to make up for historic injustice and “systemic” oppression. Without “equity”, the argument runs, there can be no real “equality of opportunity.” Equity therefore comes first. Until equity is reached, equality is postponed — perhaps for ever.

Does everyone understand that? If you do, why would you want it? Just curious. This should be good.

Not sure why anyone should believe equity means favoritism. The only reason we have this dilemma in the first place is because right wingers are not moral enough to faithfully execute our own supreme law of the land.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equity is not the law of the land you fucking idiot.

 

[danielpalos]

Equity is me sacrificing to pay for my house, my ex-coworker buying new cars and taking expensive vacations and then expecting to have his retirement funds supplemented so that he could enjoy the same quality of life that I sacrificed to achieve.

Only if you ignore the meaning of equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.

From our own Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

No one is claiming that branch of Government is about the special pleading form of equity presented by that author.

 

[martybegan]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity in this case implies you give one side an advantage due to perceived slights in the past on the part of the other side.

 

[danielpalos]

Biden's Culture War Aggression

He may have needlessly crippled his chances for lowering the temperature already.

andrewsullivan.substack.com

In critical theory, as James Lindsay explains, “‘equality’ means that citizen A and citizen B are treated equally, while ‘equity’ means adjusting shares in order to make citizen A and B equal.” Here’s how Biden defines “equity”: “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

In less tortured English, equity means giving the the named identity groups a specific advantage in treatment by the federal government over other groups — in order to make up for historic injustice and “systemic” oppression. Without “equity”, the argument runs, there can be no real “equality of opportunity.” Equity therefore comes first. Until equity is reached, equality is postponed — perhaps for ever.

Does everyone understand that? If you do, why would you want it? Just curious. This should be good.

Not sure why anyone should believe equity means favoritism. The only reason we have this dilemma in the first place is because right wingers are not moral enough to faithfully execute our own supreme law of the land.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equity is not the law of the land you fucking idiot.

Right wingers are just plain dumb. It can be a challenge to dumb it down enough for right wingers.

 

[Moonglow]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity in this case implies you give one side an advantage due to perceived slights in the past on the part of the other side.

It is wrong to help people according to you?

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.

Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government | The White House

Equal opportunity is the bedrock of American democracy, and our diversity is one of our country's greatest strengths. But for too many, the American Dream remains out of reach.

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[danielpalos]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

Because equity in this case implies you give one side an advantage due to perceived slights in the past on the part of the other side.

Nope; that is affirmative action not "equity".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

if the situation warrants it?

Raciss!!!

 

[danielpalos]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

if the situation warrants it?

Raciss!!!

No one is claiming the Japanese receiving reparations for a lack of equity was racist.

 

[Moonglow]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

if the situation warrants it?

Raciss!!!

I am disabled how is a disability a racist subject?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

if the situation warrants it?

Raciss!!!

I am disabled how is a disability a racist subject?

Limiting equity to cases where "the situation warrants it" is obviously racist.

 

[Moonglow]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

if the situation warrants it?

Raciss!!!

I am disabled how is a disability a racist subject?

Limiting equity to cases where "the situation warrants it" is obviously racist.

Why would you apply equity where it is not needed?

 

[danielpalos]

Why would you not want to treat people with equity if the situation warrants it?

if the situation warrants it?

Raciss!!!

I am disabled how is a disability a racist subject?

Limiting equity to cases where "the situation warrants it" is obviously racist.

No one is advocating for "white codes". Rabble-rouser.