Yakk wrote:You shoot those who have advantages in the kneecaps? (there is a reasonably famous science fiction short story about that: not shooting in the kneecaps (but that too probably), but removing any advantages in order to get equality of outcome.)
You're thinking of Harrison Bergeron
by Kurt Vonnegut for reasons I don't really understand. Wanting women to be able to earn the same amount of money for the same amount of work, to be able to dictate her body's homeostatis, and to be able to have the basic opportunities
as a man to succeed is not a terribly accurate analogue to, say, poor Harrison being put in an awful, restrictive suit so he cannot be his superhuman self, or the TV orchestra being forced to play poorly because otherwise people at home would feel bad for not playing instruments. No one is trying to strip away the rights of rich, white, straight men (unless wanting Habeas Corpus back is taking away
rights), only to give those same exact rights to the poor, the non-white, the LGBT folk, and women. No one is asking for something for nothing unless they are a goddamn waste of space with whom serious identity politicians do not deserve to be lumped. Some people are just bad apples. The pop-feminists that spell it "womyn" are no friends of mine. The lesbians who parade in the streets as if their preference is cause for celebration make me roll my eyes.
That isn't true -- people are trying to strip away rights of the rich. You can argue that this stripping away is justified, but claiming that taxes don't strip away the natural right to own things...
No one wants better. We just want the same as it has been provided to you--at birth, without any questions or demands in return, and without wondering if it was a good idea. Straight, white, rich men in the US automatically just have life easier, for a whole slew of reasons that really have no basis in that man's actual emotional, spiritual, intellectual merit.
I suppose people are born rich, in that if your parents don't give you up for adoption, they have a legal requirement to support you. But most of the wealth that is given to children is given freely by their parents, not out of any legal obligation.
In order to remove the advantage of being born rich, you would be forced to either tax the parents to a ridiculous degree (in effect making them non-rich), or have rather draconian restrictions on what the parents can do when raising their children. The alternative -- providing all of the luxuries that a rich parent often showers on their children of their own free choice to every person born in the USA -- is ridiculous.
So, what exactly is your plan to remove the advantages of being born rich without doing huge rights infringements?
Anyway, the fact that this topic is still going and people still want to say "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others" or, more accurately, "I did nothing to garner my privileges, so even though I am complacent in fighting the system's inequalities, I feel I have no obligation to fight for the rights of my fellow human beings, even though this makes me a total dick" is my cue to not post in this topic anymore unless someone directly responds to me.
Blanket insults are not polite. If you are reduced to making points by insulting those who disagree with you, it is a good thing that you have left the discussion.
You should be willing to do ANYTHING to make someone else's life less hellish or less inequal.
That is a ridiculous statement to make. As a concrete example, there are people starving right now
in, say, sub-saharan africa. If you where to give away all of your possessions and live in absolute poverty, you could make dozens or hundreds of people's lives less hellish and more equal to your own. If you choose to do this, congrats -- but claiming that everyone should be willing to do this is stretching.
Yes, the frivolous lawsuits about the man in the women's bath was dumb. Yes, the minority-specific grants and such shouldn't be necessary, but I feel they are necessary. The more you base privilege on merit when the system disproportionately awards merit to those who are rich, white, straight, and male, it doesn't matter if you believe in a meritocracy and the worth of a person's mind and soul without looking at the packaging, because the traits that are deemed worthy of merit (and the fancy college education and the fancy job) are not mental and emotional prowess, but have been defined as, and continue to be defined as: straight, white, rich, male.
Just because merit based selection produces results that you disagree with, does not mean that the trials are biased. And the degree to which the results disagree with what you want is not the degree to which the trials are biased.
Detecting bias by ignoring initial state and asserting that anything other than equal outcomes is a sign of bias in the process in question is pretty silly to me.
By that standard, schools in the USA are horridly biased against males. University admissions are biased against males. The power to purchase goods is biased against males. There is a huge anti-male violence and death bias. The criminal justice system is ridiculously biased against males. The family law courts are massively biased against males. The health care system is biased against males, because males have a lower life expectancy.
In order to enforce equality of outcomes in the above situation, should we randomly arrest, imprison and execute females to maintain an equal number of female prisoners and state sponsored murders? Should children be randomly taken away from their families and given to males, with money to raise the child garnished from their original family? Laws against admitting more males or more females to any given university program should be strictly enforced. Women should be killed randomly, and crippled randomly, in order to lower their life expectancy and functional lifespans to that of men. Stores that sell more goods to women than men should be shut down. I don't think those would be good things to do.
bias in a given process is a completely different thing, and a good thing to look for and fix. Claiming outcome based bias detection, and then enforcing equal outcomes based off of it, is evil. It is, I'll admit, easier to do than looking for actual bias, which is why it remains so popular.
There is actual bias and discrimination out there. Find it. Tear it out and kill it.
Don't use the state to generate more bias and discrimination on top of what is already present, and then call it Justice.Edit: added some conditions to overly-broad statements.