this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
1139 points (99.7% liked)

196

16732 readers
2451 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Naw, I don't see this as being tanky. The middle one I don't really get tho.

[–] [email protected] 86 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need...

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

But isn't equity often used for "we keep the oppressive system but we allow few women and black people on the compressor side"?

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Yup. Same thing happened to the word Socialism.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

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'

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Even given the same opportunity some have no chance of reaching the desired outcome. So you create a system that provides supports that brings all to the same outcome.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nah, they described it weirdly if that's how you took it. Equity is equal oportunity: they can all watch the game. Equality is everyone gets the same reward.

Besides, both concepts can have room for extra reward for extra work in any actual implementation, so bringing it up as an absolute negative is weak logic.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For example, a person born with certain medical needs will need more at the base level than someone born those needs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Laziness is anticapitalistic. There is nothing wrong with not being an overachiever.