the middle one explains that equity unlike equality does not give everyoune the same resources, but distributes resources so every one has the same experience/chance.
I would advise fighting for equity to mean "distribution of resources to enable equal opportunity" rather than "capitalism with a diversity coating"
If you allow people to use the term incorrectly, you're allowing the term to grow/evolve into a meaning that harms the ability to accurately convey the concept you're trying to describe.
So with all that said, to respond to your question:
Perhaps you've seen it used that way. That is not what equity means though.
Not if done right, no. Affirmative action is an example of equity - in an equality scenario anyone can go for a job. Great concept in theory but in reality we end up with existing systems bias taking over and corrupting it. So you jam a fork into that bias by saying 'well dipshit, ya gotta hire x of this and x of that as part of your build'
Lmao yes actually. Never trust a black cop. Diversity hires, if in a powerful position at all, are... Theoretically just minorities who buy into the system, serve shareholders just the same.
Equity on the left is usually about progressivism and social mobility for children and students in public schools. Or that 10% low income houskng in apartment buildings so poor people can live near the well-off. We struggle to control for people's outcomes. One example of trying to fix outcomes was college admission Affirmative Action. That was, I believe, an imperfect bandaid solution. And it became unpopular enough to be removed. Even unions are open up to failure to create equity. Unions can go wrong and support racial or gendered policies, or tiered employee benefits. So I believe the sentiment you bring up is something to keep in mind always.
Sounds like a very, very fast way to disincentivize anyone working any harder, smarter, or taking any more risks than anyone else.
I get there are HUGE problems with unregulated capitalism, but what you describe (equalizing everyone's outcomes) also comes with catastrophic consequences.
There's just not a good clean answer -- it's a fuckin rats nest and difficult to untangle. But we certainly shouldn't stop trying. Some things have got to change.
His description of giving everyone the same outcome is wrong, anyway. Equality is giving everyone the same exact assistance; even if that assistance is not adequate enough or not needed by some.
Equity gives everyone the right tools so that everyone has the same starting chance. Those who do not need assistance do not get any. Those who need a little get a little. And those who need a bit more, get a bit more.
Why do I have to "take risks" to "succeed"? I just wanna live a healthy life. My motivations don't come all that much from power or a paycheck, but rather love from others. Capital doesn't often create incentives or opportunity. A lot of our greastest innovations were made open-sourced, without copyright. And it's capitals job to figure out how to monetize the free resources society provides ourselves.
It means that people are given different amounts of resources to receive the same quality of life. Because not everyone's circumstances are the same, everyone needs different amounts of resources to maintain an equal quality of life.
That’s the way some people think of equality, and contrasted with what equity looks like, it demonstrates the flaw in that line of thinking.
Also, there is a version of this image where the fence is completely removed and the subtitle is “justice” or something like that, which is also a good contrast to both equality and equity.
You might be right, but in political rhetoric equality is often used in bad faith. Because the right knows equality doesn't solve most of the problems it's aimed at.
The Commons are a right. Doesn't matter that capitalists have attempted to do away with public property, by replacing it with private property, by illegally "purchasing" public property and natural resource rights for trillionths of pennies on the dollar, that's theft. Private property shouldn't exist without extreme regulations. Only public and personal property should exist with minimal regulations.
In b4 I'm called a tankie
Nothing tankie about this. Do conservatives just use it as a kind of slur because they heard progressives using it?
It's (basically) used to describe communists that still support authoritarian regimes such as the ussr, China, and north korea
I've not really heard conservatives use it, mostly lefties who want to distance themselves as far as they can from it.
Why do all the 40 year old boomer Lemmy users call anything to the left of the most moderate Democrat "tankie"?
I do not see it using for leftists in general. Just the ones that for some reason support Russia and China
Exactly. Those boomer posters just call you a communist.
Millennial, thank you very much. And, no, as an Anarchist I can definitely say that tankies are to the right of me. By like twenty parsecs.
Also, this.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Also, this
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Wrong age class. Boomers are 60+
“OK, boomer” attacks a mindset, not a generation
Another example is a pretty big meme from 5 years ago, the 30 year old boomer.
Lmao at the 30 year old boomer
I don't see why I'm being called a boomer (or at least that's what seems to be happening here).
While I'm not exactly storming the Bastille over here, I'm pretty fucking liberal.
Damnit 30 year olds are boomers now? Where was this boom? Did i miss it or something?
-Jack Weinberg
My, the 15 year old boomers are out of touch.
I'm not calling you a boomer, unless you're calling the image you posted tankie material and yourself a tankie.
Five years ago? Philipp Amthor turned 30 last year. Also he's not known as the 30 year old boomer but Germany's youngest pensioner.
A bit like how anybody further right of Biden is often branded a Nazi by the left, regardless of whether their policies actually resemble Fascism.
Politics has turned heavily toxic and partisan.
Moderates are still a large demographic in the US but completely unrepresented in the media and in government.
Edit: so yeah I agree. I'm personally not likely to label a moderate a Nazi, but I'll stay vigilant about it.
My guy, you’re just describing capitalism.
Unfortunately that depends on the circle you’re in. A lot of dumbass libs think that all leftist ideologies are strictly authoritarian.
Right, just like China's government
Yeah, horseshoe theory.
The horseshoe theory is bullshit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#:~:text=In%20a%202017%20article%20for,the%20two%20sides%20have%20very
You just need a 4-D horseshoe that conforms to hypercube topology. Then it kinda works.
Naw, I don't see this as being tanky. The middle one I don't really get tho.
the middle one explains that equity unlike equality does not give everyoune the same resources, but distributes resources so every one has the same experience/chance.
From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need...
But isn't equity often used for "we keep the oppressive system but we allow few women and black people on the compressor side"?
I would advise fighting for equity to mean "distribution of resources to enable equal opportunity" rather than "capitalism with a diversity coating"
If you allow people to use the term incorrectly, you're allowing the term to grow/evolve into a meaning that harms the ability to accurately convey the concept you're trying to describe.
So with all that said, to respond to your question: Perhaps you've seen it used that way. That is not what equity means though.
Yup. Same thing happened to the word Socialism.
Not if done right, no. Affirmative action is an example of equity - in an equality scenario anyone can go for a job. Great concept in theory but in reality we end up with existing systems bias taking over and corrupting it. So you jam a fork into that bias by saying 'well dipshit, ya gotta hire x of this and x of that as part of your build'
Lmao yes actually. Never trust a black cop. Diversity hires, if in a powerful position at all, are... Theoretically just minorities who buy into the system, serve shareholders just the same.
Equity on the left is usually about progressivism and social mobility for children and students in public schools. Or that 10% low income houskng in apartment buildings so poor people can live near the well-off. We struggle to control for people's outcomes. One example of trying to fix outcomes was college admission Affirmative Action. That was, I believe, an imperfect bandaid solution. And it became unpopular enough to be removed. Even unions are open up to failure to create equity. Unions can go wrong and support racial or gendered policies, or tiered employee benefits. So I believe the sentiment you bring up is something to keep in mind always.
Sounds like a very, very fast way to disincentivize anyone working any harder, smarter, or taking any more risks than anyone else.
I get there are HUGE problems with unregulated capitalism, but what you describe (equalizing everyone's outcomes) also comes with catastrophic consequences.
There's just not a good clean answer -- it's a fuckin rats nest and difficult to untangle. But we certainly shouldn't stop trying. Some things have got to change.
His description of giving everyone the same outcome is wrong, anyway. Equality is giving everyone the same exact assistance; even if that assistance is not adequate enough or not needed by some.
Equity gives everyone the right tools so that everyone has the same starting chance. Those who do not need assistance do not get any. Those who need a little get a little. And those who need a bit more, get a bit more.
Why do I have to "take risks" to "succeed"? I just wanna live a healthy life. My motivations don't come all that much from power or a paycheck, but rather love from others. Capital doesn't often create incentives or opportunity. A lot of our greastest innovations were made open-sourced, without copyright. And it's capitals job to figure out how to monetize the free resources society provides ourselves.
It means that people are given different amounts of resources to receive the same quality of life. Because not everyone's circumstances are the same, everyone needs different amounts of resources to maintain an equal quality of life.
For example, a person born with certain medical needs will need more at the base level than someone born those needs.
Yep, and a person born with a sense of ineptitude or laziness will need more given to them than someone who has more drive and aptitude.
Laziness is anticapitalistic. There is nothing wrong with not being an overachiever.
That's a pretty flawed way of describing equality, it's almost like the original image was made in bad faith
Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/secondary-education-resources/useful-information/understanding-equality
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
It's almost like the original image is trying to describe equity and not equality.
That’s the way some people think of equality, and contrasted with what equity looks like, it demonstrates the flaw in that line of thinking.
Also, there is a version of this image where the fence is completely removed and the subtitle is “justice” or something like that, which is also a good contrast to both equality and equity.
You might be right, but in political rhetoric equality is often used in bad faith. Because the right knows equality doesn't solve most of the problems it's aimed at.
The image cuts off the billionaire sitting on top of the large stack of boxes, with each hand resting on boxes stacked slightly higher on either side.
Amongus
I didn't realize watching baseball is a right
It isn't but damn do we need to enforce it with violence that you're not supposed to stand outside the stadium?
Furthermore... Couldn't it be? Local taxpayers literally build these stadiums.
The Commons are a right. Doesn't matter that capitalists have attempted to do away with public property, by replacing it with private property, by illegally "purchasing" public property and natural resource rights for trillionths of pennies on the dollar, that's theft. Private property shouldn't exist without extreme regulations. Only public and personal property should exist with minimal regulations.