Previously known as "This is a hard topic for me. I'm not sure how to label it. Perhaps I'll do it later"
Uhh. I am sure every kind of leftist people will rush in this thread to discipline of my wicked, "Te" ways or whatnot. But.
I beg you to leave your prejudice at the front door before entering this thread.
First of all, I'll give you an introduction to the topic.
The idea of "better" and "worse" has been used for a damned long time. The very reason for it seems obvious. That's one of the most easiest, and natural disction to make. People are naturally drawn to it.
Then we have a *huge*, overwhelming consensus about what we should apply this concept on. I.e. We should not apply it to anything.
There's no better and worse DVD players. They're only different. No better or worse cigarettes. Some of them are just popular, but that's a no aspect of their general "goodness". If there is such a concept.
And then we come to, - oh heavens - yes, we come to people. Now, people are sacred. Oh heavens, there can't be better and worse people? I mean, per equality theorems, people are equal - blasphemy! Some people are just different, they're special, etc - but not worse than the other person. Right?
You come to know a person at a place you work in. (S)He seems to have his/her mind wandering on strange topics, he's late, walks like a drunken person, eyes going to off directions. Gives an impression of someone retarded, but you don't know for sure if it's retardation, of if the person is just drugged, or just chosen to be strange. After a month you get to know, the person has the most lousy opinion about everything. (S)he doesn't qualify for a normal adult. Your idea of people being "equal" is served by a single thought: every person deserves to be treated well. You do so. You treat that person well. You think (s)he is equal in your books.
You are attracted to a person because of their looks. They seem OK at the beginning. They end up being incredibly controlling, insecure, and they're having incredibly bad job. They have problems about everything under the sun. Did you walk in from the door the wrong way? It gives them anxiety. Did the mailman drop the mail from the letterbox in an "offensive manner"? They think it tells of a wish to "dominate" or something like that. Perhaps the mailman is out to get them. You sit next to a person. THey get anxious. They've failed at work. Your sitting next to them makes them remember the time they failed. It seems offensive to them. They end up shouting you're a terrible person.
Someone thinks they have the perfect world view. Everyone should be equal, and materialist conditions should not be looked upon to make an evaluation of the person. It's the thought that counts, you know. You introduce the person to someone. They are mute, they seem to hold a grudge, and they dismiss the introduction with contempt. They move on to say they don't need anything, it's all the same, and nothing matters. Soon they complain they're anxious about coming payday. They think they're not getting enough salary. They haven't worked much. They didn't like to work, because the work was terrible. They haven't applied for a job, because any job isn't quite right for them. They think it's the society's fault to make things like this. When they go to a job interview, they make a terrible impression of themselves. They dismiss the evaluation as biased. They know what's it like to be "them" inside. No-one should evaluate them according to external standards.
In other words, the people in the 3 examples are some kind of a failures. Big or small, situational or not, failures nevertheless. We aren't supposed to recognize any of them as such.
Suppose you were to seek a person of equal level for some purpose. You were to seek them for a mate, friend, business partner, peer, etc.
You would probably make the evaluation that the person #1. #2 or #3 weren't quite "at your level". You mean, you couldn't imagine gaining relevant insight of the world from any of those persons. They had something attractive, or something that drew your attention. When you saw the all of it, you noticed - to your sadness - they were no good.
Now that's when it gets hard to believe in equality of people in all respects.
This is a heavily hated topic for most of the people in modern society. We are giving equal opportunity to everyone. But, some persons show as examples, that people are not quite equal in many respects.
How do you handle this?
Do you have a ladder of your own, where some people are on the "top" and some people are at the bottom? What kind of ladder it is?
In my ladder, people lowest on the life skills are at the bottom. If someone is angry at everyone, has the mindset of a disturbed 3-year old, etc. He's at the bottom. If someone doesn't want to develop themselves - they are incompatible with most everyone, they can't adapt to situations, they don't know how to behave, they are pathologically silent / unresponsive / uncaring / departed from this world, they are at the bottom.
There's not a prepared diagnosis for everyone. If there were a nice label for someone, I'd understood them better. Someone is behind the social development compared to people of their age? Okay, that's understandable. Lack of social development can be managed, given that the person has some aspects of decent development.
But, then there are some examples that almost force you to place a ranking of human success for people. You just can't hold them as equally successful.
Then you get the bad feeling of elitism. Isn't elitism bad? You're only liking someone strong, you only approve of winners, etc. Isn't that terrible. But given how bad some people can be, you can't help but to rank people according to their abilities, how good they seem, etc.
You have become elitist, no matter how egalitarian you were at the beginning.
Now this is a taboo subject. I find this subject much polarized. People are being called "nazi" for noticing people to have better and worse opportunities for a good life.
So, I now got it off my chest. You have noticed I didn't make a central claim or proposition to the subject. That was intentional.