I'm a teacher. I recently took an online class on equity. We were discussing that image with the three boys watching the baseball game. I ever so gently pushed back. I was banned from the class.
Just out of curiosity, how did you push back? Not that it really matters of course, this reflexive defensiveness (and from people who are supposedly on the left, no less) is just not a good look any way you slice it. My guess is bad faith actors have made a lot of people overly sensitive to perceived “attacks”, to the point where they can no longer differentiate the trolls from the well-intentioned inquisitors - or have just given up trying altogether - and in response they’ve adopted this stance of _‘if you’re not 100% with us, you’re against us, and if you’re against us, you’re a threat and you must be neutralized.’_ Unfortunately stifling discussion and silencing critics and those who are just asking questions is a good way to alienate both supporters and detractors alike. Plus it sends the message that their ideas aren’t even strong enough to withstand a little healthy debate, which is incredibly damaging to the very cause these gatekeepers are trying to protect. Just counterproductive all around…😒
@@saskialolita Just out of curiosity, how did you push back?" I pointed out that parents of students getting less attention because they don't "need it as much" might be a bit upset. I also pointed out the problem of who built the box. If the tall guy built his own box and then it is taken away and given to the shorter boy that seems unfair to the builder. As a teacher I try to give equal attention to all kids. I want to help the smart students get to Harvard and the weaker students get to community college. I want to help the A students and the F students. I want equality not equity.
@@glennwatson3313 ah gotcha… All very fair, valid points that could’ve led to an interesting discussion, it’s unfortunate the admin didn’t agree. I’m glad you were just banned from the class and not fired altogether or something tho cuz we need teachers who ask questions and encourage their students to do the same. Keep fighting the good fight and try not to be discouraged by all the bs
The emergence of equity over equality is an attempt at a twofold blow to the language of racial rights. Because equality means all too poignantly exactly what it says, equity is here now to neutralize it. While at the same time obfuscating what equity actually refers to, our commons, that value you are staked by the simple fortune of your respective birthplace. Otherwise, for instance, you may borrow on the equity of your home, your outright share of its total value. Preach equality. There is no such thing as preaching equity.
isnt equity supposed to mean the exact opposite of means testing? equity is being given access to resources public ones like government, usps etc its being given access regardless of class position, so these ppk use “equity” as a pure neologism by making ppl forget what it means.
Equity is simply the quality of being fair and impartial. I'm not sure why that's such an issue? But then again, when you're accustomed to privilege then fairness feels like oppression...
She really nailed it when she said... "Why not remove the fence?" Dems have given up on removing racism, so they focus on solutions(most, not all) that result in division. There are areas where giving certain groups more resources, like in education, makes sense, but not for everything. The goal, IMO, is to give everyone the opportunity to reach a certain level, not to ensure that they all reach the same level.
People don't have the same opportunities. Even if you allow everyone to take an exam that determines who receives some benefit and who doesn't, there will be people who will prepare for the test and those who do not. Did everyone have the same opportunity to take the test? Yes. Did everyone have the same opportunity to be successful? No. Some people chose to be less prepared and therefore really couldn't take advantage of the opportunity they were given. We should all just live and let live. Enough with all this diversity this, diversity that. Everyone just needs to keep their own room clean.
@@psychicspy I agree, if we level the playing field, it'll be the European side demanding diversity. Bill Gates found out that minority kids do better when given the opportunity, and that makes sense. No foundation of civilization has ever come from the mind of a European... Not One!
Equity and equality are mutually exclusive as soon as you shoot to equity, equality is gone. The problem with equity is that someone needs to decide who deserves what, and if you don't think this is a problem then you don't know human nature. Shooting to equality is the best compromise we can do. As Thomas Sowell said "there are no solution only compromises and the best we can aspire is to get the best one".
Everything in politics ultimately comes down to a question of 'who', not 'what'. This is why it's so hard to explain why socialism doesn't work to the crowd who is focused on how brilliant and 'fair' the 'what' of socialism is. They can't be bothered to realize that all the "what" will depend entirely on how the "who" interprets and defines it when push comes to shove, and they get down to actual redistribution. It's also why we can so easily name a system the "Peoples Republic" [of China] when it is anything BUT "the people's" and run by a dictator...which is anything but a republic. The US Founders understood this already - that no free society could work unless the people had integrity and self sufficiency. The minute any government can be made to provide favors and welfare, then politicians can begin buying votes, and it's only matter of process before that government turns despotic.
@@Conserpov I know, cuz its never been tried, right? Kind of like everyone just being totally nice to each other no matter what, has never been tried. Or everyone voluntarily sharing all their stuff with everyone else has never been tried. But I have a great idea: Why don't you just give me your paycheck each month - I mean let's just try it and see. What do we have to lose? It's never been tried, so don't just assume it won't work.
@@jameseverett9037 Nice strawman. Now go outside, touch grass, and come up with some real argument why having paved roads and firefighting service is "bad and doesn't work".
The use of either text, "equality" or "equity", allows the argument to be framed in a way that avoids a strong focus on the real problem. Difference is not the problem. The problem is not that Bill Gates has so much more than a poor person. The problem is that poverty exists at all. If the poorest person had access to clean water, good food, safe housing and quality health care then it would not matter if others enjoyed great material success. We do not need equity/equality. We need to eliminate poverty. Equity/equality as it functions in contemporary discourse functions most only as a distraction from the true problem.
Agreed. We need to eliminate poverty. Very few people look at society, and the economy we all depend on for survival, as a whole system. We tend to look very closely at some parts and completely ignore other parts, as if we were trained in this manner. Fact is that we have been trained, not to see certain things. We humans are particularly susceptible to such training, it starts at home when we are children. As a system, our society/economy has two gigantic leaks and we can see them, but we are trained to misinterpret one and to ignore the other. The first leak is poverty. So much human potential is simply wasted on poverty, it is a massive energy breach in our society/economy system. Yet we are trained to see poverty as a failing of the individual. This training serves a dual purpose, to explain the first leak and to shroud the second leak. The second leak is unlimited wealth accumulation, which is another massive breach in our survival systems, where individuals collect for more wealth/energy than they can ever use in one lifetime. People are trained to see wealth accumulation as an Individual survival success story, instead of as a mortal danger to society, because after all, the individual has succeeded brilliantly. How could that be wrong or dangerous? We are deliberately focused on the individual failing or succeeding, this focus is artificial and serves to hide the real problem we have, which is engineered and not at all natural. The wealthy blame the masses for failing individually, while the aggregate growth of all wealth burgeons beyond the means of society and the economy to sustain. Gathering so much wealth too quickly always leads to society breaking down, because it is a bad system that cannibalizes itself and has never actually succeeded. Yet the wealthy spend fortunes to indoctrinate people into believing that wealth accumulation is a natural process, not to be questioned. Wealth beyond a certain point always results in political power, which is then used for the individual benefit and increase of individual wealth. Always and forever, without variation. The only way to interrupt this cycle is to see the forbidden, the fact that excessive wealth in the hands of individuals creates the system imbalance that brings on poverty. Might equals right, wealth equals power and power is might. Except that in the case of individual wealth accumulation in every society we know about, that might leads the downfall of that society. So, bottom line. To eliminate poverty, individual wealth accumulation must be capped and never again allowed to grow beyond a set point. If wealth is not capped, our society and our economy will fail catastrophically. No other reforms or programs can save us. Expansion of the United States economy from 1965 to 2020: 336% The United States expansion of privately held wealth in financial assets from 1965 to 2020: 4599% We cannot see this, because we are trained to ignore such things. Most people are simply unaware of this massive and impossible imbalance. Those numbers are not only unsustainable, they herald the breakdown of our society and this time, civilization itself.
Exactly. America does not have equality, it has inequality, and more of it every year. Why don't we try having less of it every year instead? Just a thought
@@michaelneufeld4515 And to emphasize the obvious: The USA is the wealthiest nation in human history - and we have poverty? Why? Ask that to those in power until they break - because it is a system problem and not an individual circumstance.
The problem with severe wealth disparity, even if the lowest income bracket is above the proverty line, is that with great wealth comes great political, economic and cultural power (e.g., Bill Gates buying up large parcels of farmland or influencing health policies) undermining the egalitarianism require for a functioning democracy.
"Equity" reminds me of jealousy and envy. It's wanting to cut someone else down to lift yourself up, instead of everyone being given the same opportunities and you working with the best hand that you have. You can't stand that you think someone else may have an advantage over you, so you want to "cut them down" so everything is "equitable". That's not morally correct.
Good point. In Communist China, the government recently became concerned about the inequality created by some parent's being able to afford extra tutoring for their children while other's cannot. Equitable solution? Ban private tutoring, of course.
This. Those who usually fight for equity are envious. The only thing worse for them to have bad conditions is to have someone with better conditions so they are willing to bring everyone down.
@@TheEmolano I think you've got it wrong. Sure, many Communist policies are definitely about resentment, pulling down those who 'wrongfully' have more. But 'equity' is primarily about self-enrichment: 'Take from them and give to us.'
No, equity just means recognizing that people are different and also start out life differently than others. Alot of things that happen to people are through no fault of their own. They are different circumstances of birth and what have you. Equality treats everyone the same, but we all know people aren't all the same, right? Of course, so what equity is about is recognizing this fact and treating everyone fairly, according to their specific situations. If you have 3 differently abled people who want to ride a bike it doesn't help to give them all the same bike(equality), you have to match their needs and give them each a bike that is suitable for their needs. Simple example, but you get the point.
Equity, means testing, and even racial quotas are tools of an ever more complex system that doesn't seem to guarantee anything but resentment and failure. We ignore a horribly unequal education system starting at pre-K. We ignore the lack of affordable housing that creates a void that public housing can never fill. We ignore the lack of jobs paying a living wage. We ignore the effects of wealth concentration on the entire system. Patches don't work, intractable problems need to be solved by fixing them at the root cause.
I love the use of the words "we", and "give". Oh, yeah, "we" (the government) will "give" everyone what they need to succeed. The problem is that the government has only the taxpayer's money to "give". So what's really being said is that the government is going to take the money of successful taxpayers, and hand it to people who don't contribute. Moronic, and guaranteed to fail.
I love how they all define both “equity” and “equality” to poor Brazilian kids (this meme was made during the world cup in Brazil) putting boxes behind a stadium fence so they can peak into civilization. Sick society.
That image made zero sense. My thing is why a box? Who goes to a PROFESSIONAL game standing on box behind a fence? I’m pretty sure they are breaking some rules. And why is there a rinky dink, wooden backyard fence in a PROFESSIONAL STADIUM? Why couldn’t they buy seats, like everyone else, and get a great view of the game, like everyone else? And it’s always “people of color.” Soft bigotry of low expectations.
But, they are only unpopular with "white conservatives". When Europeans came to this country post civil war, they were given resources because they were grandfathered into the "White" caste. When the same suggestion is made for non-white people, the (linguistic) blow back becomes "unpopular". It's obvious that people who identify as "White" and "Conservative" are the ones who have a problem with the language. When Trump gave out billions of dollars to failing companies to stay a float, the same people who have a problem with "equity" on the left, couldn't utter a word when the "white" run enterprises benefited from such programs. This is more of an racialized issue than it is an language issue.
@@mikev6046 Are social programs only disliked by conservatives? Tautologically yes. A conservative is someone who dislikes social programs. Are those people all white? I don't know. But if they are that's the worst case scenario and the biggest impetus for us to drop this focus on equity. A smaller population of conservatives voting against social programs would be easier to weather.
@@dinobotpwnz You're missing my point. People who identify as white and conservative are the push back to the term "equity" or the application of such. Despite what the data presents and regardless of the source, they are vehemently against the progress of "non-white" people and communities that don't feature "white people". You can try and rebrand the term and it won't matter. The 1921 terrorist attack(tulsa) proves that the term "Equity" is a scapegoat for the macroaggression that lead to social disdain that "white conservatives" genocide those recipients by social policy.
@@mikev6046 Nope. Not only conservatives, and while likely yes, majority white, plenty of liberals/Democrats, whether white, Hispanic, or what have you, who world otherwise support progressive policies, take issue with the often downright silly made-up language employed by many progressives. Otherwise we would most assuredly have President Warren, not President Biden, right now.
Equity demands a perfection that doesn't exist, excluding the bad people to create the new and diverse world is among us. Equality demands an effort not everybody has, working together give us the best means of overcoming the imperfections we all have.
It is about equality of outcome but not really. It's gerrymandered. All aspects of outcome are not equalized and when you equalize whatever you are using as the index for "equity" inequality of outcome will come out somewhere else. It's just an accounting trick and smoke and mirrors.
In Canada we have universal Healthcare. We all "get a box" as kamala would say, but that's actually not the case. I have drawn on the box that is marked "knee surgery" but I've paid into the universal Healthcare system my whole life. I did a small draw, okay, great, I'm lucky to be healthy. Other people are drawing on the expensive and prolonged "cancer box" "HIV box" "Multiple Sclerosis box" and I'm helping to pay for that too. This is "equity" through "equality" of a universal program. I, and most canadians are extremely happy to pay for the treatment needs of our neighbors. One day I or a family member may need to draw on the "cancer box" so I am happy to put in my share of work to manage these resources.
In contrast, America treats its unhealthy as deserving of their illness, because our country is so toxic that everyone hates everyone else, we assume the worst in the people we don't know. Sympathy here is a limited resource, for some reason. But the problem seems intractable
I just watched the video and was about to make the same point, since I also have the experience of the Canadian Health care system. Thank you for posting it. Universal programs are egalitarian, at least in theory, but don't give everyone the same thing, even in absence of identatarian discrimination, since they don't have the same needs. More egalitarian rationing might be necessary in times of scarcity of things that are needed more universally, but normally hospitals work in terms of triage, prioritizing based on severity and risk factors accounting for the supply and demand for available resources (even in a system where there is no fee for service), not on giving everyone a ration card for each health service for potentially equal amount of each treatment. The later would be inefficient since the system would not be running on the basis of maximal capacity. It would hold availability to those who don't need it. Some need more and some need less, all need different amounts of different medical services, but we are all covered when we need it. That is the point of universal programs. Isn't the socialist slogan "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?" Doesn't this imply equity more than equality? This principal also has nothing to do with group identity or their statistical means, but is allocated based on need. The Milton Freedman libertarian idea of a UBI is based on equality, which would give a more even distribution of resources, but would defund services going to those most in need of them, based on a principal of social triage. Equity can be a method to effectively utilize the potential of each, so that they can contribute to the betterment of all, since the well-being of all is regarded equally. Normally, I like Jen's critiques, but this one is off base. Equity doesn't mean means testing, it means triage. Generally universal programs are based on this kind triage, particularly medical programs. Not everyone needs the same amount of medical care of the same type, even when we have fully funded public systems. If universities were free, not everyone would want to attend the same number of classes, even if they all had equal access. We wouldn't want a system where we had to barter ration coupons for things we required more of. We have better methods of efficient allocation, which happen to favour even broader access at lower cost, since it minimizes the idleness of resource use due to inability to the pay, operating at maximal capacity due to triage.
@@A.W.B.247 Good points. For me, equalty interms of healthcare just means everyone deserves equal access to healthcare, not neccesiarly equal treatment as everyone will have different priority of needs. Perhaps, the main issue with the use of "equity" is this context, like "Latinx," is that it is non-vernacular and so seems acedemic or jargonistic to some. "I believe in equity" sounds odd compared to "I beleive in equality."
Not that Canadians are poor, but Melania's home country of Slovenia is more equal than Canada. People tend to dream of a perfect utopia. I think only two things are relevant to the outcome. Corruption and the overall tax burden of total domestic income. Usually, water supply in your house works fine, even though you have more faucets than water.
The institutional left creates this whole separate language, which makes our simple, objectively correct message completely indecipherable to anyone with like... a job and friends. Normal people.
How does this essay address racial disparities which is the whole point of equity and equality? I may have zoned out and missed it but I don't think so. I am a progressive and a supporter of universal pre-k, universal health care, etc., but this doesn't address racial disparities. It improves society in general but it does not address the overdraft fees associated with the check marked "insufficient funds" to use a Dr. King reference. What did I miss here?
@noshow22 You don't have to agree with me. I watched and listened and still have the same opinion. Also, I am not a fan of Jacobin based on these types of stories.
This women's idea of what Tucker was saying equity was either misunderstood or wrong.He was saying that equality gives every person a fair chance to achieve whatever they strive for and equity is being substituted for equality to stifle fairness for those currently at the bottom of the pecking order to preserve these positions for the people that already have them regardless to whether they have the abilty to maintain these positions. So if you were born in the elite class you are entitled and guaranteed a higher class status that your merit cant justify without fear of someone more gifted from lower classes moving up and being competition. This removes any threatening competion from the lower class to the elites.This is a sleight of hand meaning they want to shuffle the middle and lower class under the guise of fairness all the while its just a trick to keep the people of lower class from threatening their entitled positions that in the next generations are for their offspring. Stealing the future from regular folk to ensure baby Kamala and baby kamala's baby have a seat at the big table waiting for them based on who they are not what they can do. Race is acting as the shield hiding the cat in the hen house. The people they claim they are fighting for such as the bottom of the bottom are the necessary target because they have been emotionally manipulated for decades now and still have not made strides in education,training and skill. Its the trojan horse used to hide the insult and duping that is taking place. Pissing in someone face and telling them its warm water works if they believe its water.Elites view the rest of us as one big threat but use race as a way to divide and distract. So blacks may think well at least i can get a head of lower whites or catch up to them because the elites are helping because racism shouldnt hold people back. The reality is elites look at working class whites as a race just like they look at the blacks and they believe that they are better than all. The racist beliefs are held by the elites and dont want the help eating anywhere near their big safe separate living areas..This idea in general can only last so long before it collapse's because our country core value is equal opportunity for everyone. What you do with that chance is up to you and yes some people woundnt know what opportunity or their chance was if it punched them in the face.The best rising to the top has advanced our country and made it the most advance place ever.Eventually the future innovators and leaders will go elswhere or be suffocated until the fire inside burns out and unqualified people will be in charge and its definitely like elites like to say NOT SUSTAINABLE. Power and ego has slowly infiltrated our leaders positions replacing intelligence and the love of man and country. Very simple.
Employment(and other opportunities)based wholly or even partially on race, gender, or sexual orientation, for example, allow for the denial of those very same opportunities, based on those very same criteria. EEO laws exist to protect all applicants and employees from discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, among others. Which begs the question, are these laws being properly enforced, or even considered in the first place?
Historical, the more 'assistance' that is given, the less improvement happens. Give opportunities to work or learn a skill. That which is given has no value. That which is earned is treasured.
So what they never mention is that these extra boxes are paid for by other people who produced those boxes. And this is because resources and opportunities are always in a limited quantity.
Yes, much of this discussion here in the comments seems to assume that resources are unlimited. But in the real world, that is never the case. To me, arguing about whether it's equity or equality is a false distinction. It can be both. We can start from an equal place and then use justice reasoning to provide greater equity to the least well off. But we can never go to a place where resources are infinite. And we can not blow up society (anarchy) without violence that harms the least well off and creates a chaos that may never be resolved due to conflict and human nature (greed). In my view, the best we can do is to try to remove structural impediments (such as the advantages of inherited wealth, better schools, etc.) to try to provide opportunity for the least well off. Yes, that's equity because we are all equals as human beings. I don't get the presenter's disdain for means testing. It's practical. The fringe left seems averse to anything practical but I want to see change in my lifetime. I hate the DEI industry and buzzwords. But if the goal is to create more level playing field, then being pragmatic is a viable approach and the words should not matter. Denigrating the Biden-Harris approach gets us nowhere, realistically. Maybe we should re-impose a more progressive tax system so that the trickle upwards over the past 40 years is slowed (ideally stopped) and we have more resources to invest in the least well off and social ills that result from inequity. That seems like it would be practical.
@@quietcompetence6338 You made to valid points but already half the country doesnt pay fed tax, in fact so many get refunds for money never paid in. Also you seem to believe that equality would result in equal out comes and this outcome could happen with this law or program. There is no evidence that "groups" ever make the same life choices. Even if talent, intelligence and effort were the same for all group averages, people make different choices based on their desires, priorities and interests. This freedom to chose leads to very different averages and to rig the outcomes towards equity will harm way more people than help. Example: If blacks and asians chose the HArd sciences at university at wildly different rates, how could you ever have enough black representation in engineering or medical research? Again, this notion of Equity and Equality of outcomes will destroy our modern society because it is run on very complex systems at every level.
The problem with equity is that it is impossible to manage. There is no system that can possibly be devised that can account for all the characteristics of every person in a nation, let alone the globe. Instead, most Left wing institutions seek to divide people along racial lines, draw statistics of averages within that racial group, and apply equity to that group. So if you're a wealthy black person, you will be given opportunities or wealth despite not needing it, while a poor white person will miss out. A slightly better way to do it would be by class and income, but even then, the sheer amount of wastage will send nations broke, and people in need would still miss out. Equality, not equity, is what should be strived for.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s a damaging rhetoric and one that the average well-meaning person is otherwise too preoccupied to consider. These democratic politicians should be ashamed of themselves, for perpetuating the harm this system causes in the name of equality.
I'm only at the 1:16 mark and something Kamala says (in the cartoon) stuck with me: "equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place." Personally, I don't subscribe to that way of thinking. And, I think it is fundamentally different from what "equality" is supposed to achieve.
Ive never thought that equity meant that everyone ends up at the same place. I thought equity meant that we all BEGAN at the same place and competed from there.
@@angusmarch1066 Who gets to decide where that same place is? Even if many people were actually able to agree on where that starting point should be. What about the people who refuse to make it to the starting point? Make them by force? Lower the starting point bar yet again?
OMFG they made an animated New Age video for Harris's incoherent monologue about how "everyone can COMPETE on equal footing" and also "we all END UP at the same place". Do her speechwriters know what the word "compete" means? Probably, but I guess they're hoping to fool someone.
A $300 a month UBI has a much larger impact to someone with a $30k salary vs someone with a 1 million salary. Both get the same equal payment, but the impact is more equitable to those with lower incomes. Means testing is usually terrible, and is a disincentive for many to avoid earning more than the cutoff
bullshhht. there is no sane reason to give either of those 300 bucks! youmust thinkmoney grows on trees. give it to those who cannot provide even basic need s like housing or food etc. BECAUSE RESOURCES ARE LIMITED and it's an obscene sin to give it to those others when it's finite. it has to stretch to meet the needs of the truuly needy who can't get along ok at all without some help. If you can't survive on 30,000, then you are not good with money and don't make sound decisions. If you really think you need welfare, and are on a level of need with say the homeless who defnitely need a boost.
One person has an income of 100K and another person has an income of 10K. In the service of equity we give the second person 90K. Do we do that every year or do we address the reason the incomes are different?
Is that how you boiled down the message of the video? I ask because Im trying to make the message more consise in my head and am having a hard time. Is this what she is trying to say?
It seems to me that equality is objective, where as equity is subjective. And it's that subjectivity that gives cynical parties plausible deniability when they corrupt equitable systems for their own gain
Yes, I think what she is referring to is that even with equity measures in place there is still a massive wealth divide between classes and social mobility remains fairly low. In this optic, equity measures are just a smoke and mirrors to make society appear more fair than it actually is.
EQUITY VS EQUALITY. Equality pertains to the rights of individuals. Equity, to communal rights. For example, each individual enjoys the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But what happens when one man’s property prevents fishermen, say, from having easy access to the ocean upon which their livelihood depends without being sued for trespassing? That’s when equity kicks in whose principle is live and let live. If a judge determines that the fishermen have the right to cross the property to pursue their calling without being guilty of trespassing, then the judge has applied the principle of equity to the situation. In general then when individual rights conflict with each other equity demands that the individual rights be partially compromised to allow the members of a community to live and let live. Now I must confess I don’t know what either Kamala Harris or Jen Pan were talking about or how what they were saying applies to politics. But I have the feeling it’s an important issue and I hope Jen Pan gives it another try because I know Kamala Harris certainly won’t.
Trespassing is typically a criminal offense, not a civil one. Any local judge who legislated basic property rights from the bench would be immediately overruled pending appeal. The entire analogy is nonsensical and your definition of equity isn’t used in any real sense, even in academia
@@Leathal Dear Leathal, In identifying equity with communal as distinct from individual rights, I feel I sounded the heart of equity. If, however, the heart of equity is not used in any real sense in court or in academia, then alas I can only conclude that judicial precedent and academic opinion is heartless.
PROOF THAT EQUITY IS AS GUILTY OF INEQUITY AS INEQUITY OF EQUITY Black Lives Matter. All Lives Matter- including the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people. Black Lives Matter implies that black lives matter more than the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people. All Lives Matter implies that the lives of white people including the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people MATTER AS MUCH AS the lives of black people for whom black lives matter more than the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people. Since the lives of black people for whom the lives of black people matter more than the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people MATTER AS MUCH AS the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people, I can only conclude that equity is as guilty of inequity as inequity of equity.
Conflict Theory: The fight for equality was successful to the point that there was little left to fight. Thus the equality paradigm became the Thesis, the Antithesis minded revolutionaries needed a thesis to revolt against, thus equity Also by targeting disparities, which always existed, and will always exist, the thesis to revolt against is eternal, thus the revolution, the solidarity in it’s Antithesis is eternal. An endless cash cow so long as you don’t actually do anything meaningful about it.
Does it mean, then, in order to achieve equality we need to tackle equity by having more progressive taxation system, abolishing tax havens, and sending the rich to the secluder islands?
In Kamala's video, there is an inconsistency. She says that everyone should be given the resources they need so that they are on equal footing, so that they can then compete on equal footing. Now.....if all are equal, how can there be competition? Competition immediately means that people are no longer equal, and it immediately alters the state of equity into inequity, because some people are going to pull ahead, and some people are going to lag behind. Some are going to be active learners, and some are going to be unable or unwilling to adapt. You have IMMEDIATE inequity. So it doesn't matter ultimately whether they start out with equity, the inequity is going to manifest in ANY sort of competition. And there's the rub. Equity only exists if there is ultimate control of all variables (which is impossible) and if someone is doing the controlling. (Which it seems to current administration is trying to position itself to try.) Promoting equity as the ultimate goal also means destroying meritocracy, accountability, creativity, and achievement. You cannot wave a wand and make people smarter or taller or faster or more talented or more loved or of a different race or of different genetics or of a different faith or give them better families and on and on. There are some variables that you can help correct for, but equity is actually impossible. As it is a lot easier to hold people back than to empower them to move forward, then that is the plan that gets applied to everyone. Since you can't stop people from being criminals, ALL must be treated as criminals. OR the criminals must be treated as those who don't break the law. Standards must be lowered to that slowest or least capable measure. Equity in a hospital would mean that everyone must be dying or dead. The whole idea is toxic to society and to culture. It is a horrible ideology in a sugary coating promoted with preschool level cartoons. How STUPID this administration thinks we are. We have to resist it and fight it in any way that we can.
This is sort of alluded to but not fleshed out, but this goal of everyone reaching the same destination implies some things about capitalism that simply aren’t true and won’t be properly addressed by liberal multiculturalism. The idea that neoliberal technocrats will engineer out unequal outcomes with just the right policies is absurd. So, when inequality is inevitably still an issue, the talking points will become, “Well, everyone was given the tools they need to succeed, and if some people didn’t succeed, that’s just there problem.” This “equity” rhetoric still depends on the weird idea that fundamental human needs should be earned; the only difference is liberals want to make earning necessities easier by eliminating some impediments to earning them.
that would be nice if it were true. equity means taking and redistributing just because someone has more than someone else. Or in the case of the current Black Reparations, it's about what thier grandparents had or did not have. Regardless of how many white people's ancestors were also dirt poor and did not hand anything down to them. . It doesn't mean what you said. And we will always have those who aren't able to support themselves. any decent society should care for the poor.
I just didn't get the point of the speakers. The arguments are muddy and uncompelling. I am more confused now than before. How can you simplify the points. I was not clear on whether you are for/against means testing?
She makes the argument that means testing for social programs that advantage certain groups can make such programs very costly to operate and therefore becomes the perfect talking points to discredit it, making them dead on arrival. It's a form of hypocrisy by liberals to show some care for the people while not actually doing what would really be the right thing which would be to remove the fence, or basically reduce class inequality for everyone with universal programs funded through progressive taxation.
if equity means that "if you mess with me, my family, or my stuff, you get an immediate fresh start in the next life"; then I'm all in, if it doesn't, forget it.
I love the mix of presentation and dialogue at the end. And the lack of quick cuts like most RUclips videos. Good discussion, no woke bullshit just straight facts.
Instead of tortured semantics, the bottom line is the golden rule. Simply put, if you were an average joe born into poverty, would you like society to provide food stamps, universal health and free public higher education?
@@theCosmicQueen there are problems with means testing at least for health. It develops two different heath systems unless the public assistance is identical to the private insurance and it delays assistance while means are tested plus mistakes can occur.
No. I want a society to provide a free market where I can go work for a better future. Being "given" stuff (other than opportunity) destroys the human character. I had nothing when I was young. I was broke. I lived in a tiny apartment with roommates working minimum wage jobs, but I had a brain to create a plan... and then I executed the plan. Now I own a house and have a lot of money and investments.
@@badgerfishinski6857 you assume that sickness will never prevent you from working and providing for your needs. You better hope you never get cancer. Also, in your dream world, you better hope that you never grow old because the “free market” would never have provided Medicare. Moreover, you better hope your luck never changes for the worse so that you become poor and homeless. See the problem is that poverty is a extremely difficult obstacle to overcome. Very few people have the brains and strength to overcome it. That is why it is always present. If you were in that situation, with your great “brain”, you would still like a helping hand to live if you get sick while you are trying to overcome poverty.
I agree. Giving things to people destroys their character. Everyone born in the USA has some sort of hindrance. I don't care what race, creed, religion, etc... As an individual, they just need to discover their strengths and run with it........ I had plenty of hindrances when I was younger. Poor, uneducated, lived in a crappy city, etc.. I created a plan, executed the plan, and now I am educated and almost wealthy... I think these "victims" just don't realize what it takes to dig themselves out of a hole. Sad.
People are not equal. We don't have the same capacities, talents, skills, desires, ambitions, drives, motivations, work ethics, choices, habits, etc. The only way to make everyone's outcome the same then is omnipresent government tyranny. Along with being antithetical to human freedom, such a system would by definition be spectacularly unfair, since it rewards people for doing nothing and fails to reward people for putting in maximum effort -- which means everyone is incentivized to do as little as possible. Which means truly essential jobs such as farming and industry will be carried out at gunpoint and the proceeds carted away to be distributed among the dole recipients so that everyone get their "equity" regardless of what they contribute. Which is why communist regimes always end up collapsing and starving millions of people. It may be a nice idea if you have a third-grader mentality like Kamala Harris but it's ignorant of human nature and is at odds with reality.
The false hope that is put forward is that if people had all identical situations they would all end up at the same place. But we know even in families where everything is nearly identical a family of four children will have a variety of outcomes for each of those children depending upon what they value What their talents are, the effort they put forth and sometimes just luck.
One aspect of equity I haven't seen addressed is the difference between objective vs. subjective equity. The examples used are always objective equity..any person can tell the child cannot see over the fence and the obvious equitable solution. Societal equity isn't objective on a case by case basis. This fact would necessarily require a third party (government) to draw lines and designate benefits. This fact alone guarantees corruption, bloat, mismanagement, and waste.
Creating power and prestige for the third-party administrator is the goal. Plenty of arrogant people out there who think they know how to rearrange, saw, and stack those boxes....and look into the souls and circumstances of the people standing behind that fence.
I think you guys have lost the plot in your opposition to Gramsci, "equality" is a liberal concept, and were the workers to seize the means of production, they would have "equity" in the means of production. If we want to move toward state socialism incrementally per Gramsci, we have to be slowly replacing equality with equity. And, I'm sorry, but we all saw last summer how far a violent uprising against capitalist state power will go. But to actually support "equality" as Jacobin is doing here is just to be a reactionary liberal (what's the other word for that?).
The other problem with the box metaphor is the amount of people. With the 3 (tall, med, short) people, suggesting everyone have two boxes to see over the fence seems inefficient. But if you had 99 short people, and 1 tall person, giving everyone two boxes makes sense, and the means testing is inefficient
Thank you for taking this on, Jen. It's seemed to me that seems that "equity" is functionally just a new liberal way of denigrating substantive equality as a goal, and of trying to reconcile support for capitalism with some vague notion of fairness, like the old "we support equality of opportunity, just not equality of outcome". Yes, it's upgraded and probably more effective. But we may be able turn it around and say that we're for EQUALITY rather than sham liberal EQUITY. If they no longer want the word "equality", it's ours for the taking.
Strange!!! Equity is understood as focusing on substantive equality as opposed to procedure equality which assumes away the impact of structures!! How is this discussion not just political conservatism masquerading as Marxism!!!! Maybe there is a particular motivation here that is going I said… who stands to benefit!!!!
I don't think equity needs to be anti-universal or automatically mean means testing. I'm a former educator and I first learned about equity as a way to give each student what they need so that they can be educationally successful (not equal footing at the end, but making sure they have as few barriers as possible due to their disability ... really I should not blame the disability as what I mean is that it is ensuring those with disabilities have the same access to the content, for instance people with auditory processing disorders need access to content that does not involve sound and people who are color blind need figures to differentiate objects by more than just color). And this equity was often said how it benefits everyone in the classroom as a special education teacher may break things down in a way that also helps students who don't have a learning disability and how a wheelchair ramp ends up helping people on crutches, people with strollers, and people with bikes. There is universal access to the Special education teacher and a wheelchair ramp, but their disproportionally help those with specific needs. Same with universal healthcare as it helps everyone, but those who are chronically I'll will get far more benefits from such a system since such a system is design to help those who suffer from poor health. I'd argue that means testing is the antithesis of equity as it is gate keeping needs and causes people to prove their needs while universal programs usually can be taken advantage of on an as needed basis. One exception to that is a UBI as there are set payment (people who need more don't get more), but a UBI is similar to a minimum wage as it should represent a minimum standard of living and does help everyone meat their needs. So a UBI and universal housing is just infrastructure that helps everyone and prevents the marginalized from being denied access. That said, I would define equity as giving everyone what they need. Not everyone wants to be in the same place. For children, some are clingy and need extra hugs while others need extra independence and special classes to hone an ability, like art classes (both may feel like they are being treated unfairly becausee one gets extra hugs when the other doesn't want hugs while the other gets an art class while the one who wants lots of hugs has little interest in art). My understanding is that equity is about having the systems in place so that people can use what they need when they need it (public transportation is equity as it allows those with low mobility to get where they need to go and allows people to control their own lives without having to beg someone else for help and getting caught up in their stuff).
Equity comes from special education and disability advocacy. These are areas where it makes sense. We need specific considerations for people who don't have access to certain rights. With that said Jen's point is 100% correct when she said this is just what equality means. Equality is to work toward the outcome not a policy or practice. The Congress of Racial Equity wasn't trying to restrict white diners from more restaurants so that there was equal restrictions for everybody. That would be absurd. Imagine Kamala Harris in the 1960s. "We need a movement to make sure black trans people with visual impairment have access to restaurants." CORE leaders: "Why not just say all people should have access to every restaurant?" Kamala: "That's not giving the box to the short person try to watch the baseball game! Some black people can already go to some restaurant's!"
It's kinda dumb distinction in the first place, but is potentially useful in education about the needs of individuals with disability and special needs. When talking about actual fucking welfare outside of it, it turns out to be incredibly racist/classist.
@@specialdead a lot of white ppl couldn't either . or would rather save any money they had for more important things. who wants restaurant food? not me.
Fantastic video. Thank you for sharing. There are undoubtedly some issues with Kamala Harris’ understanding of equality vs. equity. But all that aside, I think the biggest problem with equity is in its attempt to implement it based on race. If you’re doing any kind of serious analysis of racial demographics, you’ll find that it is far too nuanced to accurately group people together by skin color where equity might be concerned. This is an extremely poor metric in analysis. Only a few years prior, this method would’ve never passed the rigorous standards of academia. I think it’s pretty obvious that politics has overshadowed science in this case.
With the box analogy, they fail to mention that the fence was built for capitalist purposes to ensure only people who pay get to watch and the tall person was the contractor who built the fence and, coincidentally, is selling boxes.
Knowing that Tucker Carlson is the most watched show in the country scares the shit out of me sometimes....the right has some seriously powerful propaganda outlets
I love the Tucker Carlson show. They tell the truth in a civil way without innuendo or misleading euphemisms. By contrast, I was called a colonizer in a Lefty channel. This was my response: "I'm a colonizer? LOL. Are you a person that has been colonized? 😁 I have family that moved to the Western 🇺🇸 from Europe about 180 years ago. They set up a mercantile store on the Oregon trail. They had to deal with uncivilized indigenous folks periodically. While tending the store alone one day my 4x great grandmother "colonized" an Indian that unwisely tried to play Colonizers-and-Injuns with her. He pulled a knife on her to show his dissatisfaction with the exchange value for his substandard furs. She then colonized him with an axe by chasing him out of HER store with it. The other Indians in the store laughed. They laughed as one of their own attacked a woman and then laughed as they saw him being defeated by a woman. People like this that barely have any semblance of a civilization, no written language, and no sense on how to appropriately behave when experiencing sticker shock are ripe for colonization.
@@jzoobs I'm curious about how you feel about how folks exhibit pro-black biased BEHAVIOR. Blacks and whites both have a pro black bias. I just found a study that shows that black people have three times more pro-black bias than white people have. So it's no wonder that black people feel like they're being treated unfairly and unfortunately everyone is buying into it. Here is the video with 17 cited sources. Start at 18 minutes and 13 seconds and hear the stunning conclusion at 21 minutes and 22 seconds. The 17 studies are cited. Over-all they show a pro-black bias. ruclips.net/video/11kxfIi9ftA/видео.html
"it's about giving people the resources and the support they need so that everyone can be on equal footing and compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place." That's not how competition works. Has Kamala never seen a sporting event? Do the competitors always end up in the same place as the end of the game or match? No, they do not. One is the winner, the other is the loser. Giving everyone access to the same resources so they can develop their skills and compete as fairly as possible is all well and good, IF competition is the goal, if we want a system of winners and losers, but I don't want that. I don't want to compete with my fellow human beings for resources, I want to share and cooperate, for the benefit of all.
Thanks for drawing attention to that. It was the first thing I noticed that made me almost lose my mind. Your rebuttal is good. This "equity" rhetoric may be an updated and more effective part of liberal ideology, especially with the faux racial justice angle built in, but I think we can maybe turn it around and just say that we're for EQUALITY, not just liberal EQUITY, and explain that in ways similar to how you just did. If they no longer want the word "equality," it's ours.
@@Iamawesomenorly But why? We have plentiful resources and yet we squander them. This isn't a 'law of nature'. This is a structure of human idiocy. You point out a reality but do not realize its stupidity (capitalism and corporatism).
@@RobertTempleton64 the fact that we overproduce and overconsume does not mean competition of resources is not a basic law of nature. it's a law of nature because it applies to more than just humans. how much longer would resources be plentiful if there weren't competition over them?
That's why we have means testing. we should supply basics to those who cannot provide well or at all for self or family. ther e is only enough extra resources for that much. Not for jus t handing out money etc to people who already ahve enough for the basics.
The terms don't seem to be defined well or used consistently here. First, "equity" doesn't just refer just to racial disparities, it can refer to any disparity such as class. Second, I can't see how redistributing the wealth of the 1% isn't equity given that it is leveling the playing field.
The sad thing about the rope climb analogy, is that the black man didn’t even get a chance to climb the rope to the top/compete. The purpose of equity is to give people a chance to compete, a chance to win.
I’m troubled by the repeated use of the word “given” or “give”. Who exactly is the “giver”? Example of giving boxes to stand on so they can all “steal” the labor of the baseball players. Someone provides the box; the people in the stands pay the players. The guys watching behind the fence provide nothing and are rewarded for their laziness.
The idea that equity means ending up in the same place is a weird take, I've never heard that anywhere else but in this bizarre campaign ad. In my understanding, it's mostly about making sure everyone has their most basic needs covered, it doesn't say anything about how non-essential resources are distributed. This kind of framing makes it catnip for conservatives, PragerU is all over that shit.
That humans are equal has always been more of an ideal than a practical reality. You could say for example that "Everyone in the world should have access to good healthcare" and when it comes to poor countries you'd likely also think that it's likely to be unaffordable. Healthcare in the US mostly needs streamlining, a move towards telemedicine, and reducing the ability to sue doctors... And all kinds of prices will become manageable. Currently, one reason that doctors cost more is unnecessary tests, unnecessarily expensive medicines... Because those make their position more defensible. They've offered the best they had available... At 10x the cost of a 90% as good solution.
So I'm assuming that the desired outcome is having the same/identical outcomes... The problem with identical outcomes between different people is the only way to achieve it is having an unfair playground. Also it's an impossible aspiration. Different people will always have different outcomes.
Everyone should have access to basic human rights including things like healthcare and education. But however uncomfortable it can make someone, the fact remains that expecting similar outcomes from different people is fundamentally flawed. You will not reliably produce similar outcomes between different individuals or families nor should you expect to do so between ethnic/racial categories. It's an unrealistic, childish notion built upon false dreams of equality. Moreover, Americans do not have a responsibility to provide the same quality of life to new immigrants.
I believe most leftist would agree that this is an acceptable compromise. There doesn't need to be a communist revolution, just progress towards a fairer society, even if it's a slow progress would be a good thing.
So in the fence context, if the shorter person needs an extra box, and the tall person doesnt need a box at all, will they have to take that box from the tall person and give it to the short person, or the tall person doesnt get anything at all? And if the boxes equate to money, how hard had each person worked prior to recieving the boxes? Can they earn them (or more) regardless of need? So many variables to make it "fair" because what one person thinks if fair, its unfair compared to someone else...?
The idea of equity makes sense in some situations. Sad that it has become a way to justify means testing instead of universal programs. A way to further divide people and convince those struggling, but not struggling quite enough, that the government can't and won't ever do anything worthwhile to help them.
I don't think it does, take the example of the fence and boxes, if you rephrase equality to be "giving everyone the opportunity to see over the fence" you can see that the 'equity' side's argument is taken care of. Obviously that's a very shallow reading of the whole issue. But to me it makes sense that equality is getting everyone to the same starting line, whereas equity gets everyone to the same finish line.
@@sirellyn my apartment wouldn’t let me lol. Why don’t we just work towards a society where people don’t have to be homeless /poor? Not everything has to be an individual endeavor.
Equity, as I hear it means what is just and impartial. Why are we fighting over words? Is it not fair, just, and impartial for everyone to have access to the exact same resources? Remove all barriers and make the exact same resources accessible and available to everyone? Up to the individual to determine how far one wants to go with the resources. equity (n.) early 14c., equite, "quality of being equal or fair, impartiality;" late 14c., "that which is equally right or just to all concerned," from Old French equite (13c.), from Latin aequitatem (nominative aequitas) "the uniform relation of one thing to others, equality, conformity, symmetry;" also "just or equitable conduct toward others," from aequus "even, just, equal" (see equal (adj.)). By 1980s it had taken on extended senses in sociology, e.g.: "allocating benefits in various policy fields in such a way as to provide groups, persons, and places with at least a minimum level of benefits so as to satisfy basic needs" [Stuart S. Nagel, "Equity as a Policy Goal," 1983]. Why are we listening and reacting to politicians and political agents who wrongly or misuse use words.
Te critique is pretty good up to the point where it characterizes multicultural neoliberalism as a fait accompli, which it is not. I don't want to get too conspiratorial, but I do believe standardized testing is one way that scientific racism is applied to produce very disparate outcomes. Call me crazy for believing that a math question can be worded with certain cultural connotations that produce anxiety in some groups resulting in an incorrect response Call me crazy. Besides that, the fact that capitalism, if we can still call it that, is no where near approaching any sort of representation in racial composition, it becomes apparent here that Jacobin is pretty seriously dropping the ball somewhere. The same goes for people like Adolph Reed and the myriad other anti-race-reductionists on the left who never pass up an opportunity to dunk on wokeness. For example, of all the videos criticizing the "imposition" of the term LatinX by Democrats on the general population, I have yet to find one video defending the term and given the low percentage of Latin people who use the term, along with the uncritical reflexive fallback to Nixon's "Hispanic," which includes Spaniards i.e. European Settler Colonialists as such, I'd say most of the rhetoric is beyond salvation, regardless of which side you take on the issue or politics generally. It is important not to overstate multicultural neoliberalism as it is not something that has been achieved, albeit might be the goal for some liberals. And it is a weak argument to criticize something that doesn't really exist. Universalism is not a panacea, it is NOT "just that simple" as Walter Benn Michaels once said on this show. I'm sorry but it is not. That is a class reductionist view and Adolph Reed claims there are no serious class reductionist public intellectuals. I beg to differ. Although technically not the same thing, it does hearken back to Lenin's vicious attacks on economism, the idea that Russia had to go through a liberal bourgeois revolution before trying to build Socialism and it is a failed liberal idea at that. In fact, given China's and Russia's current trajectory, it's looking more and more the other way around every day. But I digress. The fatal flaw in all these arguments is that they draw a sharp distinction between capitalism and white supremacy, or between class and race inequality. Ultimately, I think it's a question of perspective morningtoast.substack.com/p/houdini-and-the-mysterious-disappearing upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Kaninchen_und_Ente.svg/800px-Kaninchen_und_Ente.svg.png
So, what is it with maths and english that specifically discriminates against african americans and not any other race, including africans? Certainly seems a whole lot of cope
Youre one mixed up kid. Carry on, destroy universalism. Then see just how fast slavery reappears. Youve got it all back tofront, just like they want you to
@@smozhright789 My bad, I should have said "causes a higher rate of incorrect responses among certain groups" or something along those lines. Oh wait! Here I thought you were actually trying to say something meaningful. What a fool I am.
@@imonincognitosoyoudontreco5419 - We need to eliminate poverty. Very few people look at society, and the economy we all depend on for survival, as a whole system. We tend to look very closely at some parts and completely ignore other parts, as if we were trained in this manner. Fact is that we have been trained, not to see certain things. We humans are particularly susceptible to such training, it starts at home when we are children. As a system, our society/economy has two gigantic leaks and we can see them, but we are trained to misinterpret one and to ignore the other. The first leak is poverty. So much human potential is simply wasted on poverty, it is a massive energy breach in our society/economy system. Yet we are trained to see poverty as a failing of the individual. This training serves a dual purpose, to explain the first leak and to shroud the second leak. The second leak is unlimited wealth accumulation, which is another massive breach in our survival systems, where individuals collect for more wealth/energy than they can ever use in one lifetime. People are trained to see wealth accumulation as an Individual survival success story, instead of as a mortal danger to society, because after all, the individual has succeeded brilliantly. How could that be wrong or dangerous? We are deliberately focused on the individual failing or succeeding, this focus is artificial and serves to hide the real problem we have, which is engineered and not at all natural. The wealthy blame the masses for failing individually, while the aggregate growth of all wealth burgeons beyond the means of society and the economy to sustain. Gathering so much wealth too quickly always leads to society breaking down, because it is a bad system that cannibalizes itself and has never actually succeeded. Yet the wealthy spend fortunes to indoctrinate people into believing that wealth accumulation is a natural process, not to be questioned. Wealth beyond a certain point always results in political power, which is then used for the individual benefit and increase of individual wealth. Always and forever, without variation. The only way to interrupt this cycle is to see the forbidden, the fact that excessive wealth in the hands of individuals creates the system imbalance that brings on poverty. Might equals right, wealth equals power and power is might. Except that in the case of individual wealth accumulation in every society we know about, that might leads the downfall of that society. So, bottom line. To eliminate poverty, individual wealth accumulation must be capped and never again allowed to grow beyond a set point. If wealth is not capped, our society and our economy will fail catastrophically. No other reforms or programs can save us. Expansion of the United States economy from 1965 to 2020: 336% The United States expansion of privately held wealth in financial assets from 1965 to 2020: 4599% We cannot see this, because we are trained to ignore such things. Most people are simply unaware of this massive and impossible imbalance. Those numbers are not only unsustainable, they herald the breakdown of our society and this time, civilization itself.
Personal freedom and liberty, saying what you please, working, worshipping where and when you please are what you exercise as a blogger and what we all have fought for.
The challenge with any of this is that we are not monolithic. We need to share the same values, same nurture, and have same universal goals. Over simplified example is I have 2 sons one likes ice cream and the other doesn’t. One likes suite the other doesn’t. I can the one a suit - he doesn’t value it and he won’t wear it, I can give the other 10 bowls of ice cream he won’t eat it. Now if all they had since they were born was suits and ice cream then there is no problem- the case for monolithic culture.
The biggest problem with the equity "boxes and the fence" analogy is not the fence. Is statement "if we would give.." The issue is - you not supposed to give anything. They are supposed to make stuff themselves. Give all of them just information about the game - and all of them would figure out (based on their position, body complexity and strenght of mind) solution that is best for them. Tall guy may get box, small guy, may actually set a limonade stand raise some cash, and buy semi premium seats at the game. By giving them boxes - you limit them to said boxes.
Equity seems to be just a new way of saying "communism". We want to make everyone's opportunities more equal but we cannot make their outcomes equal. We want to give disadvantaged people more opportunities but instead of "testing their means" we should just remove barriers and liberate everyone.
I prefer equity (access to resources) over equality (affirmative action), but I never see everyone ending up in the same place. We all rise to the level of our incompetence. Not everyone will rise to own a Lamborghini, but we all have the opportunity.
@@Lucas02000 Yea, thanks. I have a hard time with the definitions. I want one to mean what I want it to mean so long as it's not equal outcomes which are impossible. Confusing sometimes.:)
I'm a teacher. I recently took an online class on equity. We were discussing that image with the three boys watching the baseball game. I ever so gently pushed back. I was banned from the class.
Apparently that was equitable.
Just out of curiosity, how did you push back? Not that it really matters of course, this reflexive defensiveness (and from people who are supposedly on the left, no less) is just not a good look any way you slice it. My guess is bad faith actors have made a lot of people overly sensitive to perceived “attacks”, to the point where they can no longer differentiate the trolls from the well-intentioned inquisitors - or have just given up trying altogether - and in response they’ve adopted this stance of _‘if you’re not 100% with us, you’re against us, and if you’re against us, you’re a threat and you must be neutralized.’_
Unfortunately stifling discussion and silencing critics and those who are just asking questions is a good way to alienate both supporters and detractors alike. Plus it sends the message that their ideas aren’t even strong enough to withstand a little healthy debate, which is incredibly damaging to the very cause these gatekeepers are trying to protect. Just counterproductive all around…😒
@@saskialolita Just out of curiosity, how did you push back?"
I pointed out that parents of students getting less attention because they don't "need it as much" might be a bit upset. I also pointed out the problem of who built the box. If the tall guy built his own box and then it is taken away and given to the shorter boy that seems unfair to the builder. As a teacher I try to give equal attention to all kids. I want to help the smart students get to Harvard and the weaker students get to community college. I want to help the A students and the F students. I want equality not equity.
@@glennwatson3313 ah gotcha… All very fair, valid points that could’ve led to an interesting discussion, it’s unfortunate the admin didn’t agree. I’m glad you were just banned from the class and not fired altogether or something tho cuz we need teachers who ask questions and encourage their students to do the same. Keep fighting the good fight and try not to be discouraged by all the bs
@@saskialolita they did you an inequity by not letting you talked this is the beginning of tyranny.
We need to fight to the end against equity.
The emergence of equity over equality is an attempt at a twofold blow to the language of racial rights. Because equality means all too poignantly exactly what it says, equity is here now to neutralize it. While at the same time obfuscating what equity actually refers to, our commons, that value you are staked by the simple fortune of your respective birthplace. Otherwise, for instance, you may borrow on the equity of your home, your outright share of its total value. Preach equality. There is no such thing as preaching equity.
isnt equity supposed to mean the exact opposite of means testing? equity is being given access to resources public ones like government, usps etc its being given access regardless of class position, so these ppk use “equity” as a pure neologism by making ppl forget what it means.
@Baba Bushida Bando very succinct answer, and absolutely true.
Equity is simply the quality of being fair and impartial. I'm not sure why that's such an issue? But then again, when you're accustomed to privilege then fairness feels like oppression...
@TO-fp2oe yes, surely you are right. Getting into college on the basis of the color of your skin is totally an even playing field lmfao
@@TO-fp2oe Equity means equal outcome. If you're not sure why there's an issue, take a look at affirmative action, which is an example of equity.
Must have been tough for Andrew Jackson to be born in 1867 since he died in 1845.
I caught that right away too. Typical Carlson, spewing "facts" with blithe confidence regardless of their relation to reality.
She really nailed it when she said... "Why not remove the fence?"
Dems have given up on removing racism, so they focus on solutions(most, not all) that result in division.
There are areas where giving certain groups more resources, like in education, makes sense, but not for everything.
The goal, IMO, is to give everyone the opportunity to reach a certain level, not to ensure that they all reach the same level.
Why not purchase a ticket?
People don't have the same opportunities. Even if you allow everyone to take an exam that determines who receives some benefit and who doesn't, there will be people who will prepare for the test and those who do not. Did everyone have the same opportunity to take the test? Yes. Did everyone have the same opportunity to be successful? No. Some people chose to be less prepared and therefore really couldn't take advantage of the opportunity they were given.
We should all just live and let live. Enough with all this diversity this, diversity that. Everyone just needs to keep their own room clean.
@@psychicspy I agree, if we level the playing field, it'll be the European side demanding diversity.
Bill Gates found out that minority kids do better when given the opportunity, and that makes sense.
No foundation of civilization has ever come from the mind of a European... Not One!
@@fallonmassey4714
"Leveling" the playing field will do great harm to the human race.
@@psychicspy In what way?
Equity and equality are mutually exclusive as soon as you shoot to equity, equality is gone. The problem with equity is that someone needs to decide who deserves what, and if you don't think this is a problem then you don't know human nature. Shooting to equality is the best compromise we can do. As Thomas Sowell said "there are no solution only compromises and the best we can aspire is to get the best one".
That's a false dilemma in the first place.
Everything in politics ultimately comes down to a question of 'who', not 'what'. This is why it's so hard to explain why socialism doesn't work to the crowd who is focused on how brilliant and 'fair' the 'what' of socialism is. They can't be bothered to realize that all the "what" will depend entirely on how the "who" interprets and defines it when push comes to shove, and they get down to actual redistribution. It's also why we can so easily name a system the "Peoples Republic" [of China] when it is anything BUT "the people's" and run by a dictator...which is anything but a republic.
The US Founders understood this already - that no free society could work unless the people had integrity and self sufficiency. The minute any government can be made to provide favors and welfare, then politicians can begin buying votes, and it's only matter of process before that government turns despotic.
@@jameseverett9037
_> it's so hard to explain why socialism doesn't work_
Probably because you have no idea what this word actually means.
@@Conserpov I know, cuz its never been tried, right?
Kind of like everyone just being totally nice to each other no matter what, has never been tried. Or everyone voluntarily sharing all their stuff with everyone else has never been tried.
But I have a great idea: Why don't you just give me your paycheck each month - I mean let's just try it and see. What do we have to lose?
It's never been tried, so don't just assume it won't work.
@@jameseverett9037
Nice strawman.
Now go outside, touch grass, and come up with some real argument why having paved roads and firefighting service is "bad and doesn't work".
The use of either text, "equality" or "equity", allows the argument to be framed in a way that avoids a strong focus on the real problem. Difference is not the problem. The problem is not that Bill Gates has so much more than a poor person. The problem is that poverty exists at all. If the poorest person had access to clean water, good food, safe housing and quality health care then it would not matter if others enjoyed great material success. We do not need equity/equality. We need to eliminate poverty. Equity/equality as it functions in contemporary discourse functions most only as a distraction from the true problem.
Agreed. We need to eliminate poverty. Very few people look at society, and the economy we all depend on for survival, as a whole system. We tend to look very closely at some parts and completely ignore other parts, as if we were trained in this manner. Fact is that we have been trained, not to see certain things. We humans are particularly susceptible to such training, it starts at home when we are children. As a system, our society/economy has two gigantic leaks and we can see them, but we are trained to misinterpret one and to ignore the other.
The first leak is poverty. So much human potential is simply wasted on poverty, it is a massive energy breach in our society/economy system. Yet we are trained to see poverty as a failing of the individual. This training serves a dual purpose, to explain the first leak and to shroud the second leak. The second leak is unlimited wealth accumulation, which is another massive breach in our survival systems, where individuals collect for more wealth/energy than they can ever use in one lifetime. People are trained to see wealth accumulation as an Individual survival success story, instead of as a mortal danger to society, because after all, the individual has succeeded brilliantly. How could that be wrong or dangerous?
We are deliberately focused on the individual failing or succeeding, this focus is artificial and serves to hide the real problem we have, which is engineered and not at all natural. The wealthy blame the masses for failing individually, while the aggregate growth of all wealth burgeons beyond the means of society and the economy to sustain. Gathering so much wealth too quickly always leads to society breaking down, because it is a bad system that cannibalizes itself and has never actually succeeded. Yet the wealthy spend fortunes to indoctrinate people into believing that wealth accumulation is a natural process, not to be questioned.
Wealth beyond a certain point always results in political power, which is then used for the individual benefit and increase of individual wealth. Always and forever, without variation. The only way to interrupt this cycle is to see the forbidden, the fact that excessive wealth in the hands of individuals creates the system imbalance that brings on poverty. Might equals right, wealth equals power and power is might. Except that in the case of individual wealth accumulation in every society we know about, that might leads the downfall of that society.
So, bottom line. To eliminate poverty, individual wealth accumulation must be capped and never again allowed to grow beyond a set point. If wealth is not capped, our society and our economy will fail catastrophically. No other reforms or programs can save us.
Expansion of the United States economy from 1965 to 2020:
336%
The United States expansion of privately held wealth in financial assets from 1965 to 2020:
4599%
We cannot see this, because we are trained to ignore such things. Most people are simply unaware of this massive and impossible imbalance. Those numbers are not only unsustainable, they herald the breakdown of our society and this time, civilization itself.
Exactly. America does not have equality, it has inequality, and more of it every year. Why don't we try having less of it every year instead? Just a thought
@@michaelneufeld4515 And to emphasize the obvious: The USA is the wealthiest nation in human history - and we have poverty? Why? Ask that to those in power until they break - because it is a system problem and not an individual circumstance.
The problem with severe wealth disparity, even if the lowest income bracket is above the proverty line, is that with great wealth comes great political, economic and cultural power (e.g., Bill Gates buying up large parcels of farmland or influencing health policies) undermining the egalitarianism require for a functioning democracy.
@@sammiller9855 true
Equal outcome to create "Equity" means you need to discriminate.
"Equity" reminds me of jealousy and envy. It's wanting to cut someone else down to lift yourself up, instead of everyone being given the same opportunities and you working with the best hand that you have. You can't stand that you think someone else may have an advantage over you, so you want to "cut them down" so everything is "equitable". That's not morally correct.
Good point. In Communist China, the government recently became concerned about the inequality created by some parent's being able to afford extra tutoring for their children while other's cannot. Equitable solution? Ban private tutoring, of course.
This. Those who usually fight for equity are envious. The only thing worse for them to have bad conditions is to have someone with better conditions so they are willing to bring everyone down.
@@TheEmolano I think you've got it wrong. Sure, many Communist policies are definitely about resentment, pulling down those who 'wrongfully' have more. But 'equity' is primarily about self-enrichment: 'Take from them and give to us.'
No, equity just means recognizing that people are different and also start out life differently than others. Alot of things that happen to people are through no fault of their own. They are different circumstances of birth and what have you. Equality treats everyone the same, but we all know people aren't all the same, right? Of course, so what equity is about is recognizing this fact and treating everyone fairly, according to their specific situations. If you have 3 differently abled people who want to ride a bike it doesn't help to give them all the same bike(equality), you have to match their needs and give them each a bike that is suitable for their needs. Simple example, but you get the point.
Equity, means testing, and even racial quotas are tools of an ever more complex system that doesn't seem to guarantee anything but resentment and failure. We ignore a horribly unequal education system starting at pre-K. We ignore the lack of affordable housing that creates a void that public housing can never fill. We ignore the lack of jobs paying a living wage. We ignore the effects of wealth concentration on the entire system. Patches don't work, intractable problems need to be solved by fixing them at the root cause.
democrats hide behind complexity. take any issue, they always make a big work out if it and they comfortably sit back and watch things burn down,
I love the use of the words "we", and "give".
Oh, yeah, "we" (the government) will "give" everyone what they need to succeed.
The problem is that the government has only the taxpayer's money to "give".
So what's really being said is that the government is going to take the money of successful taxpayers, and hand it to people who don't contribute.
Moronic, and guaranteed to fail.
@ Vintage - Yep..... Agree 100% . Good post. What needs to end is this "victim" mentality that is masked by the master GASLIGHTERS.
I love how they all define both “equity” and “equality” to poor Brazilian kids (this meme was made during the world cup in Brazil) putting boxes behind a stadium fence so they can peak into civilization. Sick society.
"instead if figuring out exactly how many boxes every person needs... why not just remove the fence"
@@tripleaaakollektiv870 no fence means no rules son
That image made zero sense. My thing is why a box? Who goes to a PROFESSIONAL game standing on box behind a fence? I’m pretty sure they are breaking some rules. And why is there a rinky dink, wooden backyard fence in a PROFESSIONAL STADIUM? Why couldn’t they buy seats, like everyone else, and get a great view of the game, like everyone else? And it’s always “people of color.” Soft bigotry of low expectations.
But how do you 'remove the fence'?
democrats are not that smart
Jen is right on the money, as usual. Social programs that only cover some people are drastically unpopular.
But, they are only unpopular with "white conservatives". When Europeans came to this country post civil war, they were given resources because they were grandfathered into the "White" caste. When the same suggestion is made for non-white people, the (linguistic) blow back becomes "unpopular". It's obvious that people who identify as "White" and "Conservative" are the ones who have a problem with the language.
When Trump gave out billions of dollars to failing companies to stay a float, the same people who have a problem with "equity" on the left, couldn't utter a word when the "white" run enterprises benefited from such programs. This is more of an racialized issue than it is an language issue.
@@mikev6046 Are social programs only disliked by conservatives? Tautologically yes. A conservative is someone who dislikes social programs. Are those people all white? I don't know. But if they are that's the worst case scenario and the biggest impetus for us to drop this focus on equity. A smaller population of conservatives voting against social programs would be easier to weather.
@@dinobotpwnz You're missing my point. People who identify as white and conservative are the push back to the term "equity" or the application of such. Despite what the data presents and regardless of the source, they are vehemently against the progress of "non-white" people and communities that don't feature "white people". You can try and rebrand the term and it won't matter. The 1921 terrorist attack(tulsa) proves that the term "Equity" is a scapegoat for the macroaggression that lead to social disdain that "white conservatives" genocide those recipients by social policy.
@@mikev6046 Racism in 1921 proves that racists are still racist "despite what the data presents". Got it.
@@mikev6046 Nope. Not only conservatives, and while likely yes, majority white, plenty of liberals/Democrats, whether white, Hispanic, or what have you, who world otherwise support progressive policies, take issue with the often downright silly made-up language employed by many progressives. Otherwise we would most assuredly have President Warren, not President Biden, right now.
Equity demands a perfection that doesn't exist, excluding the bad people to create the new and diverse world is among us. Equality demands an effort not everybody has, working together give us the best means of overcoming the imperfections we all have.
It is about equality of outcome but not really. It's gerrymandered. All aspects of outcome are not equalized and when you equalize whatever you are using as the index for "equity" inequality of outcome will come out somewhere else. It's just an accounting trick and smoke and mirrors.
Just say NO to equity
In Canada we have universal Healthcare.
We all "get a box" as kamala would say, but that's actually not the case. I have drawn on the box that is marked "knee surgery" but I've paid into the universal Healthcare system my whole life. I did a small draw, okay, great, I'm lucky to be healthy.
Other people are drawing on the expensive and prolonged "cancer box" "HIV box" "Multiple Sclerosis box" and I'm helping to pay for that too.
This is "equity" through "equality" of a universal program. I, and most canadians are extremely happy to pay for the treatment needs of our neighbors. One day I or a family member may need to draw on the "cancer box" so I am happy to put in my share of work to manage these resources.
In contrast, America treats its unhealthy as deserving of their illness, because our country is so toxic that everyone hates everyone else, we assume the worst in the people we don't know. Sympathy here is a limited resource, for some reason. But the problem seems intractable
@@BradSamuelsPro Depends on the American.
I just watched the video and was about to make the same point, since I also have the experience of the Canadian Health care system. Thank you for posting it.
Universal programs are egalitarian, at least in theory, but don't give everyone the same thing, even in absence of identatarian discrimination, since they don't have the same needs. More egalitarian rationing might be necessary in times of scarcity of things that are needed more universally, but normally hospitals work in terms of triage, prioritizing based on severity and risk factors accounting for the supply and demand for available resources (even in a system where there is no fee for service), not on giving everyone a ration card for each health service for potentially equal amount of each treatment. The later would be inefficient since the system would not be running on the basis of maximal capacity. It would hold availability to those who don't need it. Some need more and some need less, all need different amounts of different medical services, but we are all covered when we need it. That is the point of universal programs.
Isn't the socialist slogan "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?" Doesn't this imply equity more than equality? This principal also has nothing to do with group identity or their statistical means, but is allocated based on need. The Milton Freedman libertarian idea of a UBI is based on equality, which would give a more even distribution of resources, but would defund services going to those most in need of them, based on a principal of social triage. Equity can be a method to effectively utilize the potential of each, so that they can contribute to the betterment of all, since the well-being of all is regarded equally. Normally, I like Jen's critiques, but this one is off base. Equity doesn't mean means testing, it means triage. Generally universal programs are based on this kind triage, particularly medical programs. Not everyone needs the same amount of medical care of the same type, even when we have fully funded public systems. If universities were free, not everyone would want to attend the same number of classes, even if they all had equal access. We wouldn't want a system where we had to barter ration coupons for things we required more of. We have better methods of efficient allocation, which happen to favour even broader access at lower cost, since it minimizes the idleness of resource use due to inability to the pay, operating at maximal capacity due to triage.
@@A.W.B.247 Good points. For me, equalty interms of healthcare just means everyone deserves equal access to healthcare, not neccesiarly equal treatment as everyone will have different priority of needs. Perhaps, the main issue with the use of "equity" is this context, like "Latinx," is that it is non-vernacular and so seems acedemic or jargonistic to some. "I believe in equity" sounds odd compared to "I beleive in equality."
Not that Canadians are poor, but Melania's home country of Slovenia is more equal than Canada. People tend to dream of a perfect utopia. I think only two things are relevant to the outcome. Corruption and the overall tax burden of total domestic income. Usually, water supply in your house works fine, even though you have more faucets than water.
The institutional left creates this whole separate language, which makes our simple, objectively correct message completely indecipherable to anyone with like... a job and friends. Normal people.
Because it's more about in group signaling than actually winning.
How does this essay address racial disparities which is the whole point of equity and equality? I may have zoned out and missed it but I don't think so. I am a progressive and a supporter of universal pre-k, universal health care, etc., but this doesn't address racial disparities. It improves society in general but it does not address the overdraft fees associated with the check marked "insufficient funds" to use a Dr. King reference.
What did I miss here?
They did address it. You just weren't paying attention, or the answer was unsatisfactory to you.
@noshow22 You don't have to agree with me. I watched and listened and still have the same opinion. Also, I am not a fan of Jacobin based on these types of stories.
@@weston.weston I'm sure you did...
@@weston.weston you're welcome.
This women's idea of what Tucker was saying equity was either misunderstood or wrong.He was saying that equality gives every person a fair chance to achieve whatever they strive for and equity is being substituted for equality to stifle fairness for those currently at the bottom of the pecking order to preserve these positions for the people that already have them regardless to whether they have the abilty to maintain these positions. So if you were born in the elite class you are entitled and guaranteed a higher class status that your merit cant justify without fear of someone more gifted from lower classes moving up and being competition. This removes any threatening competion from the lower class to the elites.This is a sleight of hand meaning they want to shuffle the middle and lower class under the guise of fairness all the while its just a trick to keep the people of lower class from threatening their entitled positions that in the next generations are for their offspring. Stealing the future from regular folk to ensure baby Kamala and baby kamala's baby have a seat at the big table waiting for them based on who they are not what they can do. Race is acting as the shield hiding the cat in the hen house. The people they claim they are fighting for such as the bottom of the bottom are the necessary target because they have been emotionally manipulated for decades now and still have not made strides in education,training and skill. Its the trojan horse used to hide the insult and duping that is taking place. Pissing in someone face and telling them its warm water works if they believe its water.Elites view the rest of us as one big threat but use race as a way to divide and distract. So blacks may think well at least i can get a head of lower whites or catch up to them because the elites are helping because racism shouldnt hold people back. The reality is elites look at working class whites as a race just like they look at the blacks and they believe that they are better than all. The racist beliefs are held by the elites and dont want the help eating anywhere near their big safe separate living areas..This idea in general can only last so long before it collapse's because our country core value is equal opportunity for everyone. What you do with that chance is up to you and yes some people woundnt know what opportunity or their chance was if it punched them in the face.The best rising to the top has advanced our country and made it the most advance place ever.Eventually the future innovators and leaders will go elswhere or be suffocated until the fire inside burns out and unqualified people will be in charge and its definitely like elites like to say NOT SUSTAINABLE. Power and ego has slowly infiltrated our leaders positions replacing intelligence and the love of man and country. Very simple.
Employment(and other opportunities)based wholly or even partially on race, gender, or sexual orientation, for example, allow for the denial of those very same opportunities, based on those very same criteria.
EEO laws exist to protect all applicants and employees from discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, among others.
Which begs the question, are these laws being properly enforced, or even considered in the first place?
Tucker Carlson's video is correct. Why did this woman call it bizarre? He speaks the truth.
Historical, the more 'assistance' that is given, the less improvement happens. Give opportunities to work or learn a skill.
That which is given has no value.
That which is earned is treasured.
Best post on this thread. Thank you.
So what they never mention is that these extra boxes are paid for by other people who produced those boxes. And this is because resources and opportunities are always in a limited quantity.
Yes, much of this discussion here in the comments seems to assume that resources are unlimited. But in the real world, that is never the case. To me, arguing about whether it's equity or equality is a false distinction. It can be both. We can start from an equal place and then use justice reasoning to provide greater equity to the least well off. But we can never go to a place where resources are infinite. And we can not blow up society (anarchy) without violence that harms the least well off and creates a chaos that may never be resolved due to conflict and human nature (greed). In my view, the best we can do is to try to remove structural impediments (such as the advantages of inherited wealth, better schools, etc.) to try to provide opportunity for the least well off. Yes, that's equity because we are all equals as human beings. I don't get the presenter's disdain for means testing. It's practical. The fringe left seems averse to anything practical but I want to see change in my lifetime. I hate the DEI industry and buzzwords. But if the goal is to create more level playing field, then being pragmatic is a viable approach and the words should not matter. Denigrating the Biden-Harris approach gets us nowhere, realistically. Maybe we should re-impose a more progressive tax system so that the trickle upwards over the past 40 years is slowed (ideally stopped) and we have more resources to invest in the least well off and social ills that result from inequity. That seems like it would be practical.
@@quietcompetence6338 You made to valid points but already half the country doesnt pay fed tax, in fact so many get refunds for money never paid in.
Also you seem to believe that equality would result in equal out comes and this outcome could happen with this law or program. There is no evidence that "groups" ever make the same life choices. Even if talent, intelligence and effort were the same for all group averages, people make different choices based on their desires, priorities and interests. This freedom to chose leads to very different averages and to rig the outcomes towards equity will harm way more people than help. Example: If blacks and asians chose the HArd sciences at university at wildly different rates, how could you ever have enough black representation in engineering or medical research?
Again, this notion of Equity and Equality of outcomes will destroy our modern society because it is run on very complex systems at every level.
The problem with equity is that it is impossible to manage. There is no system that can possibly be devised that can account for all the characteristics of every person in a nation, let alone the globe.
Instead, most Left wing institutions seek to divide people along racial lines, draw statistics of averages within that racial group, and apply equity to that group. So if you're a wealthy black person, you will be given opportunities or wealth despite not needing it, while a poor white person will miss out.
A slightly better way to do it would be by class and income, but even then, the sheer amount of wastage will send nations broke, and people in need would still miss out.
Equality, not equity, is what should be strived for.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s a damaging rhetoric and one that the average well-meaning person is otherwise too preoccupied to consider. These democratic politicians should be ashamed of themselves, for perpetuating the harm this system causes in the name of equality.
Very strongly worded comment for a white male to write on this topic, wow
@@owenmersk4626 post modernist hack spotted and it's you Owen.
@@stud6414 Are you another white man?
@@owenmersk4626 What the hell does someone's race or gender have to do with whether or not what they're saying is correct?
I'm only at the 1:16 mark and something Kamala says (in the cartoon) stuck with me: "equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place." Personally, I don't subscribe to that way of thinking. And, I think it is fundamentally different from what "equality" is supposed to achieve.
Ive never thought that equity meant that everyone ends up at the same place. I thought equity meant that we all BEGAN at the same place and competed from there.
@@angusmarch1066
Who gets to decide where that same place is? Even if many people were actually able to agree on where that starting point should be. What about the people who refuse to make it to the starting point? Make them by force? Lower the starting point bar yet again?
@@pikengren1exactly, this is all nonsense
OMFG they made an animated New Age video for Harris's incoherent monologue about how "everyone can COMPETE on equal footing" and also "we all END UP at the same place". Do her speechwriters know what the word "compete" means? Probably, but I guess they're hoping to fool someone.
This was light on substantive critique of equity, and explanation of why equality is a better guiding principle.
Having an axe to grind means you're sucking up to someone in order to get something out of them.
Thank you for this break down, very eye opening. Calling it what it is, means testing, really hits the nail on the head.
A $300 a month UBI has a much larger impact to someone with a $30k salary vs someone with a 1 million salary. Both get the same equal payment, but the impact is more equitable to those with lower incomes.
Means testing is usually terrible, and is a disincentive for many to avoid earning more than the cutoff
bullshhht. there is no sane reason to give either of those 300 bucks! youmust thinkmoney grows on trees. give it to those who cannot provide even basic need s like housing or food etc. BECAUSE RESOURCES ARE LIMITED and it's an obscene sin to give it to those others when it's finite. it has to stretch to meet the needs of the truuly needy who can't get along ok at all without some help. If you can't survive on 30,000, then you are not good with money and don't make sound decisions. If you really think you need welfare, and are on a level of need with say the homeless who defnitely need a boost.
One person has an income of 100K and another person has an income of 10K. In the service of equity we give the second person 90K. Do we do that every year or do we address the reason the incomes are different?
Is that how you boiled down the message of the video? I ask because Im trying to make the message more consise in my head and am having a hard time. Is this what she is trying to say?
The company that organized the game thinks only ticket purchasers should be able to watch
Generally, “equality” is equal opportunity, and “equity” is forcing the same outcomes.
@ Curtis - You nailed it . I agree with you. Give me equality, and I will shun equity. Good post Curtis
Non-political point - Jackson born 1767, not 1867. Carlson probably just read or wrote it wrong?
It seems to me that equality is objective, where as equity is subjective. And it's that subjectivity that gives cynical parties plausible deniability when they corrupt equitable systems for their own gain
Great piece, although I was wondering if someone could pursue the analogy of ‘removing the fence’ (5:50), it’s unclear to me what is meant by this
Yes, I think what she is referring to is that even with equity measures in place there is still a massive wealth divide between classes and social mobility remains fairly low. In this optic, equity measures are just a smoke and mirrors to make society appear more fair than it actually is.
EQUITY VS EQUALITY.
Equality pertains to the rights of individuals. Equity, to communal rights. For example, each individual enjoys the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But what happens when one man’s property prevents fishermen, say, from having easy access to the ocean upon which their livelihood depends without being sued for trespassing? That’s when equity kicks in whose principle is live and let live. If a judge determines that the fishermen have the right to cross the property to pursue their calling without being guilty of trespassing, then the judge has applied the principle of equity to the situation. In general then when individual rights conflict with each other equity demands that the individual rights be partially compromised to allow the members of a community to live and let live.
Now I must confess I don’t know what either Kamala Harris or Jen Pan were talking about or how what they were saying applies to politics. But I have the feeling it’s an important issue and I hope Jen Pan gives it another try because I know Kamala Harris certainly won’t.
Trespassing is typically a criminal offense, not a civil one. Any local judge who legislated basic property rights from the bench would be immediately overruled pending appeal. The entire analogy is nonsensical and your definition of equity isn’t used in any real sense, even in academia
@@Leathal
Dear Leathal,
In identifying equity with communal as distinct from individual rights, I feel I sounded the heart of equity. If, however, the heart of equity is not used in any real sense in court or in academia, then alas I can only conclude that judicial precedent and academic opinion is heartless.
PROOF THAT EQUITY IS AS GUILTY OF INEQUITY AS INEQUITY OF EQUITY
Black Lives Matter. All Lives Matter- including the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people.
Black Lives Matter implies that black lives matter more than the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people.
All Lives Matter implies that the lives of white people including the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people MATTER AS MUCH AS the lives of black people for whom black lives matter more than the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people.
Since the lives of black people for whom the lives of black people matter more than the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people MATTER AS MUCH AS the lives of white people for whom black lives matter less than the lives of white people, I can only conclude that equity is as guilty of inequity as inequity of equity.
Conflict Theory:
The fight for equality was successful to the point that there was little left to fight.
Thus the equality paradigm became the Thesis, the Antithesis minded revolutionaries needed a thesis to revolt against, thus equity
Also by targeting disparities, which always existed, and will always exist, the thesis to revolt against is eternal, thus the revolution, the solidarity in it’s Antithesis is eternal. An endless cash cow so long as you don’t actually do anything meaningful about it.
Does it mean, then, in order to achieve equality we need to tackle equity by having more progressive taxation system, abolishing tax havens, and sending the rich to the secluder islands?
In Kamala's video, there is an inconsistency. She says that everyone should be given the resources they need so that they are on equal footing, so that they can then compete on equal footing. Now.....if all are equal, how can there be competition? Competition immediately means that people are no longer equal, and it immediately alters the state of equity into inequity, because some people are going to pull ahead, and some people are going to lag behind. Some are going to be active learners, and some are going to be unable or unwilling to adapt. You have IMMEDIATE inequity. So it doesn't matter ultimately whether they start out with equity, the inequity is going to manifest in ANY sort of competition. And there's the rub. Equity only exists if there is ultimate control of all variables (which is impossible) and if someone is doing the controlling. (Which it seems to current administration is trying to position itself to try.)
Promoting equity as the ultimate goal also means destroying meritocracy, accountability, creativity, and achievement. You cannot wave a wand and make people smarter or taller or faster or more talented or more loved or of a different race or of different genetics or of a different faith or give them better families and on and on. There are some variables that you can help correct for, but equity is actually impossible. As it is a lot easier to hold people back than to empower them to move forward, then that is the plan that gets applied to everyone. Since you can't stop people from being criminals, ALL must be treated as criminals. OR the criminals must be treated as those who don't break the law. Standards must be lowered to that slowest or least capable measure. Equity in a hospital would mean that everyone must be dying or dead. The whole idea is toxic to society and to culture. It is a horrible ideology in a sugary coating promoted with preschool level cartoons. How STUPID this administration thinks we are. We have to resist it and fight it in any way that we can.
Thank you for this brilliant show. You're so right. Means testing is the death of all redistributive policies
This is sort of alluded to but not fleshed out, but this goal of everyone reaching the same destination implies some things about capitalism that simply aren’t true and won’t be properly addressed by liberal multiculturalism. The idea that neoliberal technocrats will engineer out unequal outcomes with just the right policies is absurd. So, when inequality is inevitably still an issue, the talking points will become, “Well, everyone was given the tools they need to succeed, and if some people didn’t succeed, that’s just there problem.” This “equity” rhetoric still depends on the weird idea that fundamental human needs should be earned; the only difference is liberals want to make earning necessities easier by eliminating some impediments to earning them.
@@No23Name23
I don’t want to be that guy, but that really was autocorrect.
that would be nice if it were true. equity means taking and redistributing just because someone has more than someone else. Or in the case of the current Black Reparations, it's about what thier grandparents had or did not have. Regardless of how many white people's ancestors were also dirt poor and did not hand anything down to them. . It doesn't mean what you said. And we will always have those who aren't able to support themselves. any decent society should care for the poor.
I just didn't get the point of the speakers. The arguments are muddy and uncompelling. I am more confused now than before. How can you simplify the points. I was not clear on whether you are for/against means testing?
She makes the argument that means testing for social programs that advantage certain groups can make such programs very costly to operate and therefore becomes the perfect talking points to discredit it, making them dead on arrival.
It's a form of hypocrisy by liberals to show some care for the people while not actually doing what would really be the right thing which would be to remove the fence, or basically reduce class inequality for everyone with universal programs funded through progressive taxation.
Equality:
Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish, he will eat forever.
Equity:
Nah. I’d rather just get free fish.
if equity means that "if you mess with me, my family, or my stuff, you get an immediate fresh start in the next life"; then I'm all in, if it doesn't, forget it.
I love the mix of presentation and dialogue at the end. And the lack of quick cuts like most RUclips videos. Good discussion, no woke bullshit just straight facts.
Instead of tortured semantics, the bottom line is the golden rule. Simply put, if you were an average joe born into poverty, would you like society to provide food stamps, universal health and free public higher education?
sure , until he doesn't need them any more. MEANS TESTING.
@@theCosmicQueen there are problems with means testing at least for health. It develops two different heath systems unless the public assistance is identical to the private insurance and it delays assistance while means are tested plus mistakes can occur.
No. I want a society to provide a free market where I can go work for a better future. Being "given" stuff (other than opportunity) destroys the human character. I had nothing when I was young. I was broke. I lived in a tiny apartment with roommates working minimum wage jobs, but I had a brain to create a plan... and then I executed the plan. Now I own a house and have a lot of money and investments.
@@badgerfishinski6857 you assume that sickness will never prevent you from working and providing for your needs. You better hope you never get cancer. Also, in your dream world, you better hope that you never grow old because the “free market” would never have provided Medicare. Moreover, you better hope your luck never changes for the worse so that you become poor and homeless. See the problem is that poverty is a extremely difficult obstacle to overcome. Very few people have the brains and strength to overcome it. That is why it is always present. If you were in that situation, with your great “brain”, you would still like a helping hand to live if you get sick while you are trying to overcome poverty.
Being born into poverty hasn’t stopped millions of Americans and immigrants from financial success...
You give everyone everything they want you will only hurt people.
I agree. Giving things to people destroys their character. Everyone born in the USA has some sort of hindrance. I don't care what race, creed, religion, etc... As an individual, they just need to discover their strengths and run with it........ I had plenty of hindrances when I was younger. Poor, uneducated, lived in a crappy city, etc.. I created a plan, executed the plan, and now I am educated and almost wealthy... I think these "victims" just don't realize what it takes to dig themselves out of a hole. Sad.
People are not equal. We don't have the same capacities, talents, skills, desires, ambitions, drives, motivations, work ethics, choices, habits, etc. The only way to make everyone's outcome the same then is omnipresent government tyranny. Along with being antithetical to human freedom, such a system would by definition be spectacularly unfair, since it rewards people for doing nothing and fails to reward people for putting in maximum effort -- which means everyone is incentivized to do as little as possible. Which means truly essential jobs such as farming and industry will be carried out at gunpoint and the proceeds carted away to be distributed among the dole recipients so that everyone get their "equity" regardless of what they contribute. Which is why communist regimes always end up collapsing and starving millions of people. It may be a nice idea if you have a third-grader mentality like Kamala Harris but it's ignorant of human nature and is at odds with reality.
You have the best comment. I luv it. Most people won't like it though because it deals with the cold hard reality of life and being a human being.
The false hope that is put forward is that if people had all identical situations they would all end up at the same place. But we know even in families where everything is nearly identical a family of four children will have a variety of outcomes for each of those children depending upon what they value What their talents are, the effort they put forth and sometimes just luck.
LOL and depending on how they get treated by thier parents. ! huge one there.
One aspect of equity I haven't seen addressed is the difference between objective vs. subjective equity. The examples used are always objective equity..any person can tell the child cannot see over the fence and the obvious equitable solution. Societal equity isn't objective on a case by case basis. This fact would necessarily require a third party (government) to draw lines and designate benefits. This fact alone guarantees corruption, bloat, mismanagement, and waste.
Creating power and prestige for the third-party administrator is the goal. Plenty of arrogant people out there who think they know how to rearrange, saw, and stack those boxes....and look into the souls and circumstances of the people standing behind that fence.
I think you guys have lost the plot in your opposition to Gramsci, "equality" is a liberal concept, and were the workers to seize the means of production, they would have "equity" in the means of production. If we want to move toward state socialism incrementally per Gramsci, we have to be slowly replacing equality with equity. And, I'm sorry, but we all saw last summer how far a violent uprising against capitalist state power will go. But to actually support "equality" as Jacobin is doing here is just to be a reactionary liberal (what's the other word for that?).
The other problem with the box metaphor is the amount of people. With the 3 (tall, med, short) people, suggesting everyone have two boxes to see over the fence seems inefficient. But if you had 99 short people, and 1 tall person, giving everyone two boxes makes sense, and the means testing is inefficient
Thank you for taking this on, Jen. It's seemed to me that seems that "equity" is functionally just a new liberal way of denigrating substantive equality as a goal, and of trying to reconcile support for capitalism with some vague notion of fairness, like the old "we support equality of opportunity, just not equality of outcome". Yes, it's upgraded and probably more effective. But we may be able turn it around and say that we're for EQUALITY rather than sham liberal EQUITY. If they no longer want the word "equality", it's ours for the taking.
Strange!!! Equity is understood as focusing on substantive equality as opposed to procedure equality which assumes away the impact of structures!!
How is this discussion not just political conservatism masquerading as Marxism!!!!
Maybe there is a particular motivation here that is going I said… who stands to benefit!!!!
The sad reality is there is no perfect system due to the immense diversity of people and situations. The best we can do is make trade offs.
I don't think equity needs to be anti-universal or automatically mean means testing. I'm a former educator and I first learned about equity as a way to give each student what they need so that they can be educationally successful (not equal footing at the end, but making sure they have as few barriers as possible due to their disability ... really I should not blame the disability as what I mean is that it is ensuring those with disabilities have the same access to the content, for instance people with auditory processing disorders need access to content that does not involve sound and people who are color blind need figures to differentiate objects by more than just color). And this equity was often said how it benefits everyone in the classroom as a special education teacher may break things down in a way that also helps students who don't have a learning disability and how a wheelchair ramp ends up helping people on crutches, people with strollers, and people with bikes. There is universal access to the Special education teacher and a wheelchair ramp, but their disproportionally help those with specific needs.
Same with universal healthcare as it helps everyone, but those who are chronically I'll will get far more benefits from such a system since such a system is design to help those who suffer from poor health. I'd argue that means testing is the antithesis of equity as it is gate keeping needs and causes people to prove their needs while universal programs usually can be taken advantage of on an as needed basis. One exception to that is a UBI as there are set payment (people who need more don't get more), but a UBI is similar to a minimum wage as it should represent a minimum standard of living and does help everyone meat their needs. So a UBI and universal housing is just infrastructure that helps everyone and prevents the marginalized from being denied access.
That said, I would define equity as giving everyone what they need. Not everyone wants to be in the same place. For children, some are clingy and need extra hugs while others need extra independence and special classes to hone an ability, like art classes (both may feel like they are being treated unfairly becausee one gets extra hugs when the other doesn't want hugs while the other gets an art class while the one who wants lots of hugs has little interest in art). My understanding is that equity is about having the systems in place so that people can use what they need when they need it (public transportation is equity as it allows those with low mobility to get where they need to go and allows people to control their own lives without having to beg someone else for help and getting caught up in their stuff).
Tucker ended up being more correct though, especially considering where we are today
Equity comes from special education and disability advocacy. These are areas where it makes sense. We need specific considerations for people who don't have access to certain rights.
With that said Jen's point is 100% correct when she said this is just what equality means. Equality is to work toward the outcome not a policy or practice. The Congress of Racial Equity wasn't trying to restrict white diners from more restaurants so that there was equal restrictions for everybody. That would be absurd.
Imagine Kamala Harris in the 1960s. "We need a movement to make sure black trans people with visual impairment have access to restaurants."
CORE leaders: "Why not just say all people should have access to every restaurant?"
Kamala: "That's not giving the box to the short person try to watch the baseball game! Some black people can already go to some restaurant's!"
It's kinda dumb distinction in the first place, but is potentially useful in education about the needs of individuals with disability and special needs. When talking about actual fucking welfare outside of it, it turns out to be incredibly racist/classist.
Yeah, my grandmother was so poor that CORE fought for her to go a restaurant that she still couldn’t afford to go to.
@@specialdead a lot of white ppl couldn't either . or would rather save any money they had for more important things. who wants restaurant food? not me.
Unfortunately human being are not rational actors so you have to find the right ideological framework to get it across.
Fantastic video. Thank you for sharing.
There are undoubtedly some issues with Kamala Harris’ understanding of equality vs. equity.
But all that aside, I think the biggest problem with equity is in its attempt to implement it based on race.
If you’re doing any kind of serious analysis of racial demographics, you’ll find that it is far too nuanced to accurately group people together by skin color where equity might be concerned.
This is an extremely poor metric in analysis.
Only a few years prior, this method would’ve never passed the rigorous standards of academia. I think it’s pretty obvious that politics has overshadowed science in this case.
why not just lower the fence?
wow she mentioned that right after you wrote it.
With the box analogy, they fail to mention that the fence was built for capitalist purposes to ensure only people who pay get to watch and the tall person was the contractor who built the fence and, coincidentally, is selling boxes.
The stadium could be municipally owned for all we know.
some of us have a problem with "giving" anything to anyone, as opposed to someone earning their position.
Sounds like communism or is just me?
It's not just you. I heard the same as you. Mind boggling huh? These people need to march their ass out of the USA.
Literally the opposite of the what the video said. You didn’t watch it. It’s a liberal, corporate-created term.
Knowing that Tucker Carlson is the most watched show in the country scares the shit out of me sometimes....the right has some seriously powerful propaganda outlets
I love the Tucker Carlson show. They tell the truth in a civil way without innuendo or misleading euphemisms.
By contrast, I was called a colonizer in a Lefty channel. This was my response: "I'm a colonizer? LOL. Are you a person that has been colonized? 😁 I have family that moved to the Western 🇺🇸 from Europe about 180 years ago. They set up a mercantile store on the Oregon trail. They had to deal with uncivilized indigenous folks periodically. While tending the store alone one day my 4x great grandmother "colonized" an Indian that unwisely tried to play Colonizers-and-Injuns with her. He pulled a knife on her to show his dissatisfaction with the exchange value for his substandard furs. She then colonized him with an axe by chasing him out of HER store with it. The other Indians in the store laughed. They laughed as one of their own attacked a woman and then laughed as they saw him being defeated by a woman. People like this that barely have any semblance of a civilization, no written language, and no sense on how to appropriately behave when experiencing sticker shock are ripe for colonization.
@@hammockcamping2500 cool story bro
@@jzoobs thanks. What do you not like about Tucker?
@@jzoobs I'm curious about how you feel about how folks exhibit pro-black biased BEHAVIOR. Blacks and whites both have a pro black bias. I just found a study that shows that black people have three times more pro-black bias than white people have. So it's no wonder that black people feel like they're being treated unfairly and unfortunately everyone is buying into it. Here is the video with 17 cited sources. Start at 18 minutes and 13 seconds and hear the stunning conclusion at 21 minutes and 22 seconds. The 17 studies are cited. Over-all they show a pro-black bias.
ruclips.net/video/11kxfIi9ftA/видео.html
"it's about giving people the resources and the support they need so that everyone can be on equal footing and compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place." That's not how competition works. Has Kamala never seen a sporting event? Do the competitors always end up in the same place as the end of the game or match? No, they do not. One is the winner, the other is the loser. Giving everyone access to the same resources so they can develop their skills and compete as fairly as possible is all well and good, IF competition is the goal, if we want a system of winners and losers, but I don't want that. I don't want to compete with my fellow human beings for resources, I want to share and cooperate, for the benefit of all.
Thanks for drawing attention to that. It was the first thing I noticed that made me almost lose my mind. Your rebuttal is good. This "equity" rhetoric may be an updated and more effective part of liberal ideology, especially with the faux racial justice angle built in, but I think we can maybe turn it around and just say that we're for EQUALITY, not just liberal EQUITY, and explain that in ways similar to how you just did. If they no longer want the word "equality," it's ours.
good luck. resources are finite and thus competition for resources is a law of nature.
@@Iamawesomenorly But why? We have plentiful resources and yet we squander them. This isn't a 'law of nature'. This is a structure of human idiocy. You point out a reality but do not realize its stupidity (capitalism and corporatism).
@@RobertTempleton64 the fact that we overproduce and overconsume does not mean competition of resources is not a basic law of nature. it's a law of nature because it applies to more than just humans. how much longer would resources be plentiful if there weren't competition over them?
That's why we have means testing. we should supply basics to those who cannot provide well or at all for self or family. ther e is only enough extra resources for that much. Not for jus t handing out money etc to people who already ahve enough for the basics.
It’s important to not gloss over what Tucker is saying just because he seems incoherent. He’s speaking to people who understand him.
The terms don't seem to be defined well or used consistently here. First, "equity" doesn't just refer just to racial disparities, it can refer to any disparity such as class. Second, I can't see how redistributing the wealth of the 1% isn't equity given that it is leveling the playing field.
The sad thing about the rope climb analogy, is that the black man didn’t even get a chance to climb the rope to the top/compete. The purpose of equity is to give people a chance to compete, a chance to win.
*Equality.
I did enjoy your convo. Just now what’s important on the coasts may not be the same in the heartland.
I’m troubled by the repeated use of the word “given” or “give”. Who exactly is the “giver”?
Example of giving boxes to stand on so they can all “steal” the labor of the baseball players.
Someone provides the box; the people in the stands pay the players. The guys watching behind the fence provide nothing and are rewarded for their laziness.
Everybody believes in equality of opportunity not outcome. Equity is dangerous and political suicide.
The idea that equity means ending up in the same place is a weird take, I've never heard that anywhere else but in this bizarre campaign ad. In my understanding, it's mostly about making sure everyone has their most basic needs covered, it doesn't say anything about how non-essential resources are distributed. This kind of framing makes it catnip for conservatives, PragerU is all over that shit.
That humans are equal has always been more of an ideal than a practical reality.
You could say for example that "Everyone in the world should have access to good healthcare" and when it comes to poor countries you'd likely also think that it's likely to be unaffordable.
Healthcare in the US mostly needs streamlining, a move towards telemedicine, and reducing the ability to sue doctors... And all kinds of prices will become manageable.
Currently, one reason that doctors cost more is unnecessary tests, unnecessarily expensive medicines...
Because those make their position more defensible. They've offered the best they had available... At 10x the cost of a 90% as good solution.
Equality is everyone having constitutional rights, and governed by the same laws.
Equity is the new focus because equality was achieved.
The equity illustration is about watching not about participating, in fact participating in sports is the best example of meritocracy vs equity
So I'm assuming that the desired outcome is having the same/identical outcomes...
The problem with identical outcomes between different people is the only way to achieve it is having an unfair playground.
Also it's an impossible aspiration. Different people will always have different outcomes.
Everyone should have access to basic human rights including things like healthcare and education. But however uncomfortable it can make someone, the fact remains that expecting similar outcomes from different people is fundamentally flawed. You will not reliably produce similar outcomes between different individuals or families nor should you expect to do so between ethnic/racial categories. It's an unrealistic, childish notion built upon false dreams of equality. Moreover, Americans do not have a responsibility to provide the same quality of life to new immigrants.
I believe most leftist would agree that this is an acceptable compromise. There doesn't need to be a communist revolution, just progress towards a fairer society, even if it's a slow progress would be a good thing.
100% spot on
So in the fence context, if the shorter person needs an extra box, and the tall person doesnt need a box at all, will they have to take that box from the tall person and give it to the short person, or the tall person doesnt get anything at all? And if the boxes equate to money, how hard had each person worked prior to recieving the boxes? Can they earn them (or more) regardless of need? So many variables to make it "fair" because what one person thinks if fair, its unfair compared to someone else...?
The idea of equity makes sense in some situations. Sad that it has become a way to justify means testing instead of universal programs. A way to further divide people and convince those struggling, but not struggling quite enough, that the government can't and won't ever do anything worthwhile to help them.
I don't think it does, take the example of the fence and boxes, if you rephrase equality to be "giving everyone the opportunity to see over the fence" you can see that the 'equity' side's argument is taken care of. Obviously that's a very shallow reading of the whole issue. But to me it makes sense that equality is getting everyone to the same starting line, whereas equity gets everyone to the same finish line.
If you get rid if the fence then they will say you’re for open boarders…
you mean unwanted boarders...
So how many homeless people do you have living in your home with you?
@@sirellyn 0 because I have an apartment .
@@Epok17 With an open door welcoming all homeless inside?
@@sirellyn my apartment wouldn’t let me lol. Why don’t we just work towards a society where people don’t have to be homeless /poor? Not everything has to be an individual endeavor.
This young woman is very intelligent.
Equity, as I hear it means what is just and impartial. Why are we fighting over words? Is it not fair, just, and impartial for everyone to have access to the exact same resources? Remove all barriers and make the exact same resources accessible and available to everyone? Up to the individual to determine how far one wants to go with the resources.
equity (n.)
early 14c., equite, "quality of being equal or fair, impartiality;" late 14c., "that which is equally right or just to all concerned," from Old French equite (13c.), from Latin aequitatem (nominative aequitas) "the uniform relation of one thing to others, equality, conformity, symmetry;" also "just or equitable conduct toward others," from aequus "even, just, equal" (see equal (adj.)).
By 1980s it had taken on extended senses in sociology, e.g.: "allocating benefits in various policy fields in such a way as to provide groups, persons, and places with at least a minimum level of benefits so as to satisfy basic needs" [Stuart S. Nagel, "Equity as a Policy Goal," 1983].
Why are we listening and reacting to politicians and political agents who wrongly or misuse use words.
Te critique is pretty good up to the point where it characterizes multicultural neoliberalism as a fait accompli, which it is not. I don't want to get too conspiratorial, but I do believe standardized testing is one way that scientific racism is applied to produce very disparate outcomes. Call me crazy for believing that a math question can be worded with certain cultural connotations that produce anxiety in some groups resulting in an incorrect response Call me crazy.
Besides that, the fact that capitalism, if we can still call it that, is no where near approaching any sort of representation in racial composition, it becomes apparent here that Jacobin is pretty seriously dropping the ball somewhere. The same goes for people like Adolph Reed and the myriad other anti-race-reductionists on the left who never pass up an opportunity to dunk on wokeness. For example, of all the videos criticizing the "imposition" of the term LatinX by Democrats on the general population, I have yet to find one video defending the term and given the low percentage of Latin people who use the term, along with the uncritical reflexive fallback to Nixon's "Hispanic," which includes Spaniards i.e. European Settler Colonialists as such, I'd say most of the rhetoric is beyond salvation, regardless of which side you take on the issue or politics generally.
It is important not to overstate multicultural neoliberalism as it is not something that has been achieved, albeit might be the goal for some liberals. And it is a weak argument to criticize something that doesn't really exist.
Universalism is not a panacea, it is NOT "just that simple" as Walter Benn Michaels once said on this show. I'm sorry but it is not. That is a class reductionist view and Adolph Reed claims there are no serious class reductionist public intellectuals. I beg to differ. Although technically not the same thing, it does hearken back to Lenin's vicious attacks on economism, the idea that Russia had to go through a liberal bourgeois revolution before trying to build Socialism and it is a failed liberal idea at that. In fact, given China's and Russia's current trajectory, it's looking more and more the other way around every day.
But I digress. The fatal flaw in all these arguments is that they draw a sharp distinction between capitalism and white supremacy, or between class and race inequality. Ultimately, I think it's a question of perspective
morningtoast.substack.com/p/houdini-and-the-mysterious-disappearing
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Kaninchen_und_Ente.svg/800px-Kaninchen_und_Ente.svg.png
So, what is it with maths and english that specifically discriminates against african americans and not any other race, including africans? Certainly seems a whole lot of cope
Youre one mixed up kid. Carry on, destroy universalism. Then see just how fast slavery reappears. Youve got it all back tofront, just like they want you to
@@smozhright789 My bad, I should have said "causes a higher rate of incorrect responses among certain groups" or something along those lines.
Oh wait! Here I thought you were actually trying to say something meaningful. What a fool I am.
@@imonincognitosoyoudontreco5419 - We need to eliminate poverty. Very few people look at society, and the economy we all depend on for survival, as a whole system. We tend to look very closely at some parts and completely ignore other parts, as if we were trained in this manner. Fact is that we have been trained, not to see certain things. We humans are particularly susceptible to such training, it starts at home when we are children. As a system, our society/economy has two gigantic leaks and we can see them, but we are trained to misinterpret one and to ignore the other.
The first leak is poverty. So much human potential is simply wasted on poverty, it is a massive energy breach in our society/economy system. Yet we are trained to see poverty as a failing of the individual. This training serves a dual purpose, to explain the first leak and to shroud the second leak. The second leak is unlimited wealth accumulation, which is another massive breach in our survival systems, where individuals collect for more wealth/energy than they can ever use in one lifetime. People are trained to see wealth accumulation as an Individual survival success story, instead of as a mortal danger to society, because after all, the individual has succeeded brilliantly. How could that be wrong or dangerous?
We are deliberately focused on the individual failing or succeeding, this focus is artificial and serves to hide the real problem we have, which is engineered and not at all natural. The wealthy blame the masses for failing individually, while the aggregate growth of all wealth burgeons beyond the means of society and the economy to sustain. Gathering so much wealth too quickly always leads to society breaking down, because it is a bad system that cannibalizes itself and has never actually succeeded. Yet the wealthy spend fortunes to indoctrinate people into believing that wealth accumulation is a natural process, not to be questioned.
Wealth beyond a certain point always results in political power, which is then used for the individual benefit and increase of individual wealth. Always and forever, without variation. The only way to interrupt this cycle is to see the forbidden, the fact that excessive wealth in the hands of individuals creates the system imbalance that brings on poverty. Might equals right, wealth equals power and power is might. Except that in the case of individual wealth accumulation in every society we know about, that might leads the downfall of that society.
So, bottom line. To eliminate poverty, individual wealth accumulation must be capped and never again allowed to grow beyond a set point. If wealth is not capped, our society and our economy will fail catastrophically. No other reforms or programs can save us.
Expansion of the United States economy from 1965 to 2020:
336%
The United States expansion of privately held wealth in financial assets from 1965 to 2020:
4599%
We cannot see this, because we are trained to ignore such things. Most people are simply unaware of this massive and impossible imbalance. Those numbers are not only unsustainable, they herald the breakdown of our society and this time, civilization itself.
@@coolmodelguy I see you put a lot of effort into this comment. What I don't see is what it has to do with anything I said.
Personal freedom and liberty, saying what you please, working, worshipping where and when you please are what you exercise as a blogger and what we all have fought for.
The challenge with any of this is that we are not monolithic. We need to share the same values, same nurture, and have same universal goals. Over simplified example is I have 2 sons one likes ice cream and the other doesn’t. One likes suite the other doesn’t. I can the one a suit - he doesn’t value it and he won’t wear it, I can give the other 10 bowls of ice cream he won’t eat it. Now if all they had since they were born was suits and ice cream then there is no problem- the case for monolithic culture.
When companies like Salesforce have a C-suite position called Chief Diversity Officer, that’s when you know there is a total Bruh Moment
"Diversity washing"
Its about people making choices that affect their future and everyone else keeping their noses out of it.
Equity only brings people down. It never has brought anyone up
To simplify this concept, can we just say that equality is equal opportunity and equity is equal outcome?
The biggest problem with the equity "boxes and the fence" analogy is not the fence. Is statement "if we would give.."
The issue is - you not supposed to give anything. They are supposed to make stuff themselves.
Give all of them just information about the game - and all of them would figure out (based on their position, body complexity and strenght of mind) solution that is best for them. Tall guy may get box, small guy, may actually set a limonade stand raise some cash, and buy semi premium seats at the game.
By giving them boxes - you limit them to said boxes.
Me: “why don’t they all just buy tickets and enjoy the baseball game from a stadium seat?”
My trainer: *stares*
It assumes we all put in the exact same effort ,had the exact same goals
Equity can be manipulated. Equality either is or it isn't.
Yes Tucker, Jackson was definitely born in 1867.
Ok. Jen. You are opening a discussion about equity. There are many topics about it but the solutions always are too away. Thanks.
Equity seems to be just a new way of saying "communism".
We want to make everyone's opportunities more equal
but we cannot make their outcomes equal.
We want to give disadvantaged people more opportunities
but instead of "testing their means" we should just remove barriers and liberate everyone.
I prefer equity (access to resources) over equality (affirmative action), but I never see everyone ending up in the same place. We all rise to the level of our incompetence. Not everyone will rise to own a Lamborghini, but we all have the opportunity.
You got them reversed but yeah i get you.
@@Lucas02000 Yea, thanks. I have a hard time with the definitions. I want one to mean what I want it to mean so long as it's not equal outcomes which are impossible. Confusing sometimes.:)
Is Jen Pan still with the channel?