Equity vs Equality

[Kullervo]

I have talked about this dichotomy a lot around the forum because it is an extremely important value distinction for me.

First, some definitions, because a great many people find these terms highly confusing and conflate them:

The most important part is (3.)

Equity is a quality, so is abstract.
Equality is a quantity, so is concrete.

Equity really just means impartiality. It is the chief value that underlies most modern theories of justice, and is something noble which I'm sure we can all approve of here, so I only want to briefly touch on equity. In reality, I often find myself arguing that you should treat people fairly whether you like them or not, and as individuals, against those who feel that is overly rigid and inflexible. Of course, I don't believe for a moment we are all equal.

Equality is about changing people's characteristics by removing the differences which create unequal outcomes. The drive for equality is already punishing the strong and smart for their success. This is wrong. You should be judged on your merit and allowed to succeed or fail as a result of it. However, the freedom to be yourself is something which becomes meaningless if people lack any differences, not just in intellectual ability but in any sense. I truly believe biological sameness - one race, one culture, one system of belief, is the end game for progressives - because how else can you create equality? We should learn from history. A society where everyone is coerced into "being the same", and where everything is shared equally, will rapidly stagnate, losing its vigour and purpose. Look at the USSR. How much suffering is an idea worth?

When I get introduce people to progressive psychology, I tell them they must start with the concept of equality, because it underpins everything, in the same way liberty does a conservative. I believe the great majority of people, including most progressives, are totally unaware firstly of what equality actually means, its connotations and then how this has created the authoritarian SJW movement...which is poison to every college campus.

If people are unequal, equality is a virtue, and it requires physical sameness, all concrete differences become a moral evil. Because the SJWs need to find some other way to explain inequalities in society besides "they just exist", they have developed a bizarre victim-oppressor mentality. The "oppressing" group - usually white men - acts as a bogeyman, a deus ex machina to explain away anything that their social programs cannot remedy. The actual cause, which is much simpler and more logical, is rejected out of hand (maybe because it is simpler and more logical ).

What is worse is that this mentality has led to many progressives allying themselves with forces who openly hate the West and are looking to seize power here through changing demography. I view this as an alliance based on mutual hatred and can see now that there is no room for both of us.

Wow. My longest post ever...

 

[Mole]

The hatred of equity or quality is a result of ressentiment. To discover ressentiment click on https://www.uploady.com/#!/download/viOHBvhyJWS/ONwuCK6BNfQjYhYP

 

[jcloudz]

i feel like if you are going to do something like this, raise discussion or debate. there really ought to be a non bias mediator to decide whinerner outcome. otherwise, who ever opposes you, its just going to end up being a person trying to convince you otherwise, though you appear to have a position settled on an probably wont concede. this will in turn underline, high light flaws in your arguments you might not willingly concede to that are in practice, outside of theory bad/horrible. anyway, have a good one.

 

[Kullervo]

i feel like if you are going to do something like this, raise discussion or debate. there really ought to be a non bias mediator to decide whinerner outcome.

I would be in favour of this, too. Sadly no such person exists here.

otherwise, who ever opposes you, its just going to end up being a person trying to convince you otherwise, though you appear to have a position settled on an probably wont concede. this will in turn underline, high light flaws in your arguments you might not willingly concede to that are in practice, outside of theory bad/horrible. anyway, have a good one.

And I am somehow different to the rest of you in this way?

I would rather live in a world where people have the chance to be different and unique, then one where we are all lumped under one banner whether we like it or not. As I alluded to, attempts by government to force equality, such as in 1920s Soviet Russia, didn't exactly help people get by in life. The things you take for granted today wouldn't exist if there weren't inherent differences between individuals.

 

[Mole]

I would rather live in a world where people have the chance to be different and unique, then one where we are all the same. The things you take for granted today wouldn't exist without some inequality.

Personality types, and society, can't improve without inequality.

Child rearing is very important in the creation of personality types, so improved child rearing creates improved personality types.

And the improvement of child rearing is uneven across society. In particular the more prosperous parts of society have the better child rearing.

In normal societies the more prosperous parts of society are imitated by the others. And so improved child rearing percolate down in society, improving the personality profile of the whole society.

 

[Lia_kat]

I would rather live in a world where people have the chance to be different and unique, then one where we are all the same. The things you take for granted today wouldn't exist if there weren't inherent differences between individuals.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I was raised in a country where they enforced their version of "equality", food was rationed, no one could own any businesses/land, everything you did or thought (prisoners of thought were punished) was questioned and labeled, etc. Many, many people suffered as a result of this backwards thinking. Where there is difference there is change.

 

[jcloudz]

Americans being unamerican, interesting

 

[Kullervo]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I was raised in a country where they enforced their version of "equality", food was rationed, no one could own any businesses/land, everything you did or thought (prisoners of thought were imprisoned) was questioned and labeled, etc. Many, many people suffered as a result of this backwards thinking. Where there is difference there is change.

This is exactly what is beginning to happen here now, and also in the U.S. and many European countries. Imagine Animal Farm met Camp Of The Saints.

I don't view the SJW movement as something new. It is a logical consequence of ideas which have been floating around in academia since Marxism came to be. Basically if you have something of value that another person does not have, you should share it and will be shamed/punished/persecuted in some way if you refuse. The difference between then and now is that "equality" has come to mean removing cultural, sex and race differences, which are impossible beyond a point to reverse, instead of wealth redistribution.

Now, I have seen an alliance of convenience form between neo-Marxists in academia, black identity groups like Black Lives Matter, and techocrats like Mark Zuckerburg over the last five years especially, making the coalition far more dangerous.
Especially in light of the current situation in Europe, where for example, Facebook has colluded with the German government to censor social media, I believe they are quickly becoming an existential threat from the inside. The snowflakes' insistence that to prevent "offense", freedoms must be taken away, is just a ruse to silence political opposition to their social program, which is to create this equality I mentioned above.

So, who benefits?

Ironically both the people in the bottom 25%, and the people in the top 0.1% globally, but for different reasons. The "low", if you will, benefit from being raised up to a higher standard of living than they could ever achieve otherwise, but at the diabolically high price of almost everyone else being pulled down. Meanwhile, the elite, who have, naturally, opted out of this program, manage to create a populace which is totally homogeneous, as well as weaker both physically and intellectually which makes it much easier to control.

I do not find this dystopia particularly appealing, so would suggest a compromise where everyone who wants to repeat history moves to an area where they can self-destruct while the rest of us live in relative peace away from them. But that isn't good enough for the SJWs; they want to force their nightmarish vision upon everyone.

Why?

 

[Reborn Relic]

While I see and largely agree with what you're saying here, I have to wonder if the social justice types are onto something. Equity is a bit more dubious of a value to cite when saying you won't do anything about the fact that even though group X is just as good at software development as group Y, only group Y members get hired.

Whether or not that actually happens, I'm not 100% sure, but the general thrust of the data seems to suggest that it does.

As far as Muslims/Muslim immigrants go, I think in the U.S. at least we could still let people in without much issue. In Europe it's a little bit iffier, but there's more to think about there than "they're raping/murdering people". In fact, I would go so far as to consider it inequitable to suggest that women in Syria don't deserve the same protections against rape and murder that women in Cologne do.

 

[Kullervo]

While I see and largely agree with what you're saying here, I have to wonder if the social justice types are onto something. Equity is a bit more dubious of a value to cite when saying you won't do anything about the fact that even though group X is just as good at software development as group Y, only group Y members get hired.

No two groups of people are equal, you just have to average it out. But unless you believe equality is necessary for people to be happy, this shouldn't be a problem.

In fact, I would go so far as to consider it inequitable to suggest that women in Syria don't deserve the same protections against rape and murder that women in Cologne do.

Enough American blood has been spilled in vain to "spread democracy".

 

[Starry]

The way a small handful of males on this site speak of it...you would think this "absolutely radical" notion of equality was designed by feminists and other militant civil rights activists or as they are affectionately known "SJWs". Most of us, however, learn and subsequently commit to memory in primary/grade school the fact that this is not true...that this was originally something introduced by their "bros" and *surprise* some nations even consider it their defining feature.


Did Thomas Jefferson imagine that "all men are physically equal"?

 

[SearchingforPeace]

As far as Muslims/Muslim immigrants go, I think in the U.S. at least we could still let people in without much issue. In Europe it's a little bit iffier, but there's more to think about there than "they're raping/murdering people". In fact, I would go so far as to consider it inequitable to suggest that women in Syria don't deserve the same protections against rape and murder that women in Cologne do.

Equity requires that each country care for its own citizens. Period. Germany should care about German citizens. America about American citizens. China about Chinese citizens.

There is no equity in Germany caring about people in Syria as much of its own citizens.

It is up to Syria and the Syrian people to protect their own people.

That is equity.

Now, other countries, if they need people and it will not harm their own people, could choose to import new residents, but if imported residents do not benefit the society as a whole, then there is no equity to bringing in people.

Germany has a pretty old population. There may be a need to bring in people. But Germany can choose who they want in.....

 

[KitchenFly]

I think Equity is a measurement of a value estimated in good judgment estimated via or gaged or generated via the healthy actions of the three "centers", proactively engaged within the action of a conches assessment.

The body center, the hart center, the head center.
Or some may prefer the language, - the gut, - the hart, - the head.

Equality is a morel conches lead judgemental action that is also not separated from the the healthy actions of the three "centers".

The body senses when equity and equality are honoured and the higher mind and higher emotion understand and celebrate equity and equality's importance in being both honoured and actively celebrated within the role play of the minds fair play.

That's my Fi lead take on the subject. I also rely on Te and Fe to intuit my assessment of the two word values.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

The way a small handful of males on this site speak of it...you would think this "absolutely radical" notion of equality was designed by feminists and other militant civil rights activists or as they are affectionately known "SJWs". Most of us, however, learn and subsequently commit to memory in primary/grade school the fact that this is not true...that this was originally something introduced by their "bros" and *surprise* some nations even consider it their defining feature.


Did Thomas Jefferson imagine that "all men are physically equal"?

Did Jefferson believe it? He was a slave owner. And he didn't seem bothered by women being treated as second class citizens.... And property requirements, he didn’t mind them...

What is equality? Equality of opportunity? Equality of outcome? Equal representation under the law? Equal standing independent of wealth or class?

Here is what should be, at its best: government treating all citizens the same, independent of education, class, wealth, gender, height, weight, race, or religion. Not all people, because a government needs to serve its own citizens.

But Mark Zuckerberg should have no more rights and privileges than Joe Sixpack. Hillary Clinton should be held to the same legal standard as everyone else. Decisions regarding whether to charge someone with a crime should be made independent of political considerations. The IRS should treat every person or group in the same manner. Billionaires shouldn't get the government to take someone's property to give it to them. And so forth.

No one above the law and everyone treated fairly under the law.

So, discriminating against random white dude in favor of unqualified individual who may never have been disadvantaged is bad.

Just saying....

 

[KitchenFly]

According to my clairvoyant Thomas Jefferson was referring to the spiritual context in stating that all men are created equal.

Thomas Jefferson must have honoured his three "centers" the body "center" the hart "center" and the head "centre" while contemplating what he was going to say while drafting that document.

Did you contemplate what you were going to say via your own three "centers" what you would express in your post as a reply to the subjective question Equity vs Equality?

You should be ashamed and seek to make an appointment with your local Dominatrix technician to seek correction for your poor set of attitudes expressed.

In all my years of thoughtful reading and posting on this typology central web sight I have never witnessed such a sad attack on a founding member of the liberty and free spirit of the United States of America.

Let's have no more of this bad behaviour.

 

[Starry]

Did Jefferson believe it? He was a slave owner. And he didn't seem bothered by women being treated as second class citizens.... And property requirements, he didn’t mind them...

What is equality? Equality of opportunity? Equality of outcome? Equal representation under the law? Equal standing independent of wealth or class?

I am aware of Jefferson's history and the numerous contradictions between his private (recorded) thoughts, public words and daily deeds. From that, I have developed my own opinion of Jefferson and appreciate how his hands may or may not have been tied by the times he lived in and the extraordinary events he so thoughtfully influenced and directed in the most extraordinary way. Still, I am well aware of the fact that passage was written for white males that financially contribute to the group cause and asked my question with all of that in the forefront of my mind. White male to white male... What did Jefferson mean? It doesn't matter whether or not a bunch of taxpaying deviants would rise up at various points in our history in an effort to claim some of that "eecality" for themselves...that merely challenges the *who* and not the *what*. What did Jefferson mean? Did he mean...?

Equality is about changing people's characteristics by removing the differences which create unequal outcomes. The drive for equality is already punishing the strong and smart for their success. This is wrong. You should be judged on your merit and allowed to succeed or fail as a result of it. However, the freedom to be yourself is something which becomes meaningless if people lack any differences, not just in intellectual ability but in any sense. I truly believe biological sameness - one race, one culture, one system of belief, is the end game for progressives - because how else can you create equality?

**Not that you would know this due to the fact every single time I ask a question in this regard I'm told that basically no one but I'm assuming like 4 guys is intellectually capable of understanding these *complex arguments* but I agree with nearly all of what you wrote in that specific post... I keep getting interrupted though and will need to return to comment further.

 

[Kullervo]

The way a small handful of males on this site speak of it...you would think this "absolutely radical" notion of equality was designed by feminists and other militant civil rights activists or as they are affectionately known "SJWs". Most of us, however, learn and subsequently commit to memory in primary/grade school the fact that this is not true...that this was originally something introduced by their "bros" and *surprise* some nations even consider it their defining feature.

"Equality" today refers a state of equal quantity, and has nothing at all to do with natural rights. This is why I posted those definitions, so people like you become aware of what you are actually defending.

Also if you had read my post, you'd see I believe that this concept stems back to early Marxist theory. The radicals in the 60s just applied it to race and sex issues - they didn't invent it.

Did Thomas Jefferson imagine that "all men are physically equal"?

That seems hard to imagine if you look at his own lifestyle and comments on this elsewhere. You have to take the context of the Declaration into account. It was political propaganda designed to polarise people against the British.

 

[á´…eparted]

The way a small handful of males on this site speak of it...you would think this "absolutely radical" notion of equality was designed by feminists and other militant civil rights activists or as they are affectionately known "SJWs". Most of us, however, learn and subsequently commit to memory in primary/grade school the fact that this is not true...that this was originally something introduced by their "bros" and *surprise* some nations even consider it their defining feature.


Did Thomas Jefferson imagine that "all men are physically equal"?

It is startling to me that someon, anyone, could disagree with this. Sure there is nuance too, but this still holds. It's just... so simple.

In otherwords, thank you for saying this. I always appreciate your insight.

 

[Kullervo]

It is startling to me that someon, anyone, could disagree with this. Sure there is nuance too, but this still holds. It's just... so simple.

Jefferson elaborated: "people are of equal moral worth, and as such deserve equal treatment under the law".

He did not mean that people are literally equal to each other. Progressives misinterpreted his meaning to try and argue that America had equality has a founding value.

 

[á´…eparted]

Jefferson elaborated: "people are of equal moral worth, and as such deserve equal treatment under the law".

He did not mean that people are literally equal to each other. Progressives misinterpreted his meaning to try and argue that America had equality has a founding value.

You assume I value your interpretations of these matters; I don't.

Modern context is also not taken into account, and that shit matters.