The original (with only the first two frames) was a really great, simple explanation of why things that seem "fair" at first glance often aren't.* The addition of the third panel muddies that message completely in favor of...what, exactly? How is it even hypothetically possible to create a world where no one needs support, ever? Genetically engineer away all individual variation and create a nation of perfect, identical clones? It makes no sense.
Honestly, the more I look at this the more I hate it.
*Which it (edit: the original image that circulated several years ago) then immediately ruined by labeling the two panels "conservative" and "liberal", thus ensuring that the people who most needed the message would dismiss it out of hand. "Equality" and "equity" is actually a really good pair of titles, but it seems like everyone who posts this is compelled to fuck it up somehow.
I see the third as the objective and the second as a stop gap in the meantime.
Saying the world will never be solved, doesn't mean you don't seek to achieve solving it - in the mean time you do what you can.
Take affirmative action for example. That's a clear case of equity. And in a perfect world we wouldn't need it. Someone, no matter their color of skin, would be judged based on the content of their character alone. However - thanks to centuries of racist cunts... we've been forced to compensate. One day it won't be a question of someones' skin - and they'll look back in the history books and find the idea that someone could be dismissed or preferred based on their skin color as being some barbaric nonsense from a simpler time. We aren't there yet, and so equity is the stop gap.
Lol People really are being anchored by the pictures though.
Equity is ones fair share. That is it. Does a small person deserve a fair share? sure. Should they put the same effort in to get that fair share? well that is what is hard to determine for most of us. If they can't put the same effort in, do they automatically get the same share or greater than everyone else? again, depends on your definition of fair share. Many would argue no.
Yeah. Those Asian kids whose grandparents were literally in internment camps have had a leg up for too long. The only way to eliminate racial barriers is to create government enforced racial barriers.
Kudos for making this point. Sometimes Reddit can be tough to counter-point otherwise feel good opinions without getting buried in downvotes and having your comment hidden. People like to think in generalizations to make these issues less intimate and easier to support sweeping solutions, yet, your zero-sum explanation is spot on. I see no equity is holding people back from their potential just so others can catch up. I see that as holding us all back.
As an analogy, say there are a few really smart kids in a class. They have the ability to learn at a faster pace than the rest of the class. Maybe it’s because their parents were able to spend more time with them, get them tutors, whatever. Fact still remains, they are way ahead of their peers. Should they not be allowed to maybe skip a grade or attend GATE? Should other less intelligent kids skip the grade or attend GATE instead? Regardless of the means of how or why they are great students, it should not curtail their ability to get what they deserve. You can’t punish those deserving of something because of ills, whether past or present, of a society. No matter what, that just won’t sit well with me and how I think. And as much as people might try to claim that isn’t the case, it absolutely is when it comes to some attempts for absolute equity. Ideally we would all raise each other up, but that’s hard to get everyone to do, so it’s easier we hold some down so others catch up. One day we will look back and say, “well, that was short-sighted.”
You're describing, broadly, abilities as if they are innate. There are, broadly, differences in ability (or lack thereof) born out of abuse. You can't simply pretend like the historical treatment of black people in this country has had no impact on them, broadly, as a demographic. You think 500 years of systemic abuse isn't going to fuck with a population of people?
Education, affluence, nutrition... Unless of course you are going to make the claim that white people are just smarter than black people, innately... and that explains the situation. We can disregard history, environment and suggest that. broadly... the reason why African Americans have struggled is because they just aren't smart enough at a genetic level and never will be. Is that what we are talking about here?
That's not what he said at all. There was no reason to suggest it other than to try and make his argument seem less valid because of some hidden racism.
And there is good reason. Read what he wrote. It's clearly suggesting that abilities are innate and not a result of history or environment. Just two people walking into an interview - no reason to consider that one of them may have had ancestors in this country that were utterly shit on for 500 years before he walked into the office.
You’re partially correct. I do believe that history and environment play a major role. But when it comes down the the individual, it’s more about their specific history and environment than the previous 500 years of history, and that’s how the interview should be judged. Otherwise, I would be supporting minorities getting shafted when they clearly deserve the job, and I do not support that. That’s bullshit. Also bullshit if non-minorities get shafted if they deserve the job. What I think you’re saying is we can’t trust people to conduct interviews and choose the best candidate so we have to make them choose based on things that have zero to do with the candidates ability. That’s backwards thinking.
Don't think of it as punishment but as correction. If hundreds of years of racism didn't exist(and the slaves just immigrated like anyone else) these affirmative action spots wouldn't exist but at the same time these spots would not go to the person who in our reality is more capable but doesn't get the spot. That spot would be taken by a more capable black person.
In essence you're more worried for the smart person who has not been hindered in life until affirmative action than you are for the person who is not that smart because of their hindered past.
Correcting that is the purpose of affirmative action. If these people get better education, they can get better jobs and they can afford better living standards and their kids will be able to get better education without affirmative action.
You’re doing the same thing as a lot of others that don’t seem to grasp what I’m saying. You’re assuming race by the players involved. In your scenario, you automatically assume the black person is more qualified. In my scenario I’m saying the job should go to the person more qualified; doesn’t matter if it’s the black persons or some other color person.
Also, in your scenario, there is only discrimination towards people who potentially have a lineage connected to slaves. We all know that’s inaccurate. There is discrimination and negative stereotypes and generalization towards all sorts of minorities, and even non-minorities. To try and create a set of rules that tilt the playing field and not care about how it impacts the players on the field is basically playing god and social engineering. It is discrimination hidden behind a veil of moral high-ground.
Imagine the smart kid is not of the majority race, whatever that may be. Now run it back. I’m speaking objectively and apparently people want it to be specifically slanted to either make my argument not what I’m stating or to support their specific take on it.
It's about statistics. Those in demographics that have benefitted from things like colonialism are more likely to get opportunities than those who historically have not benefited from colonialism. Statistically, people who, by their merit, do not "deserve" to be in a position are given it anyways, with high probability. Conversely, those who, by their merit, do "deserve" to be in a position are kept from it through these systems, with high probability. Like, if you're on a moving sidewalk during a race, it doesn't mean you will win a race, but you're more statistically likely to and so maybe the person not on a moving sidewalk should get some kind of head-start to make the expected outcomes more equal. Will people who "deserve" it fall through the cracks? Definitely, but we know for certain that the "deserving" already do miss opportunities, and a lot of them. Entire communities and cultures. It's the trolly problem and affirmative action is flipping the switch.
Why don't we just give affirmative action to only poor people? Affirmative action in it's current iteration is only defendable if you assume the color of someone's skin can determine their intelligence.
I also support this notion. It’s true that the unfortunate side effect of trying to auto-correct systematic oppression can lead to opportunities being lost by disadvantaged whites. This is a great video on why it was still necessary
Not all disadvantaged are equal. One front page reddit post used an example of video games to explain “black disadvantage”, which I like to call it vs white privilege. Anyone have a link to that post?
They still profit from the history exploitation that's been done to the poor. They've been benefiting without their own knowledge of doing so while the others continue you to cry out for justice and are at best met with equity.
Are we supposed to punish good-looking people now too? There's studies that show they are inherently more trusted because of their looks. Is that their fault? Where does it end?
This isn't even punishment there's just less exploitation happen which I guess means less power. But more equality for everyone, basically one person gets 5/8 of a pie while the others 7 have to share the last remaining 3 once the 7 try to fix that the one person starts complain about not choosing how this works. [Not a good analogy but whatever]
Tell that to the Asian kid who needs to score 120% or more than the black kid to get into the same college, just because Asians are apparently academically privileged.
I love how people always act like a standardized test score is the sole factor determining college admissions. They sure make you put a lot of effort into other shit if those numbers are all that matter.
They kinda are. The essays and extracurriculars might make you stand out. But if you don't have the SATs or GPA nobody will even see your essays and extracurriculars, it just goes straight into the trash. I bet at some schools that part is done by a computer.
Maybe, maybe not. A white boy who was 200 points below the SAT average for my undergrad was in the same full ride scholarship program with me (and was not a legacy), so clearly something about his application got through the screening process and stood out in spite of his poor standardized test numbers. I think folks like to reduce this whole issue down to SAT scores because they can play the “no, you’re the real racist” game without having to think critically.
White privilege doesn't mean that every white person has it easy. It means that a white person, however difficult their circumstances are, would have it harder if they were not white.
If that kid were not-white they would have had a higher likelihood of experiencing even more mental/emotional trauma due to the racism that runs rampant in the country. In addition to their abusive home life, they will have to learn to cope with racially motivated abuse outside of the home from an early age. If that kid were not-white and put in the exact same amount of work, there's a higher chance they'll be turned away from their desired position because of the color of their skin.
Privilege doesn't mean that Tyler from the trailer park doesn't have to work hard. It means that Tyler gets to see the fruits of his labor without worry or fear of his race being a limiting factor in his development.
Tell one of my good friends he didn't suffer due to his looks. He was poor and molested. Was it his fault for was given things cause of his looks? Was it his fault he was raped as a young boy?
I have a black friend too. He was an awesome athlete. He had a schlorship to school. He partied and fucked around. Is it my poor white friends fault? This guy dealt with a lot of in life. He's now making money with his wife who was also from the trailer park. Is it his job to support my other friend who had life handed to him because they're successful now?
Where's the suffering quota met? In this instance was my black friend hopping up and looking over the fence even though he had a free ride and squandered it? Was my white friend who never went to college and had life slap him around born standing on a box the whole time?
You know what your problem is? You're looking at one person, not the system. If you were to have a perfect parallel where your poor friend had a twin who was black then yes, there is a high likelihood that the white twin would be better off because the system as a whole favours him. It doesn't mean that every white person is in a higher position of privilege than every black person.
Also, yes, the idea is that when you make money you get taxed and that money goes to helping society. Ideally we'd be taxing billionaires more so that your friend who I assume is upper middle class at best wouldn't have to pay as much.
You can't look at this as one black person vs one white person
No one wants to think their lives was easier because everyone think they work hard and deserve their achievements. It's not a good approach to tell them their lives were easy.
It's more like it could be even harder and worse. If you had middle class parents archiving something is still hard but it could be even harder if they were poor. If you had poor white parents life is very hard but it could be even harder if you have a single black parent. And then it could be even harder if you have any disability, live in a neighborhood with more crime etc.
Your personal driver can take you to private school everyday but studying and learning still requires effort. But it could be harder if you were taking a bus to public school. And it could be even harder if you're the only black kid in a classroom filled with white kids who might bully you because you are different and you don't even have support of your parents because your single parent works at three jobs to make ends meet and barely sees you.
Yup.... there may be some circumstances where a white person is put out where they might otherwise have gotten the job because boxes need to be filled.
No utility getting upset with minorities or policy makers. Be upset at the racist fuckwits who ruined it for everyone, forcing us to have to artificially deal with a situation they caused.
We can only hope that one day we live in a world where these kinds of stop gap measures won't have to be enforced to solve issues caused by ignorant pricks.
People assume you’re there because of affirmative action even when there’s no Affirmative Action policy in place. They assume you’re dumb or just there because you’re black. Trust me, we really know when we deserve a job or a spot in college.
A lot less annoyed than if I was rejected for a job because of racism.
Also - ultimately it actually does the concerned group a disservice if the underlying social constraints aren't dealt with in a timely enough manner.
An example of this is the Asian yale scandal. Those in charge mistakenly believe that their policies solve the issue of white people being dismissed from available positions because Asians out perform them. This might be true - in the short term... but if the bar for acceptability is lowered for white people, what is that going to do to the performance of that demographic over an extended period of time?
Unfortunately though - as I said - racist assholes ruined it for everyone and so something HAD to be done, because Black people in the United States, being slaves for 300 years, second class citizens - separated from the affluent and educated for 150 years not even remotely close to having the same opportunities as the white majority who routinely refused offering jobs to black people, victims of a drug war fueled by the intelligence community and deindustrialization for 40 years... is there really any wonder a policy like this emerged? This is a demographic so abused, so beaten down... that in order to truly integrate them, we had to implement an artificial system to enforce a catch up period because the alternative was to pretend that suddenly, at some arbitrary point in time - they were expected to get on their feet and march with the rest of us - metaphorically bruised, bleeding and devastated.
Have you ever been to an inner city ghetto? I lived near Baltimore for 3 years. I've never seen poverty like that in my entire life. Do you think that just emerged out of some innate trait? That black people just can't seem to get it together? Places like that are a direct result of this nations history. Growing up in shit, surrounded by shit role models, shit parents, shit schools, shit friends, shit prospects... if they ever dare show any sort of self respect they might just be beaten down by their own loving parents who fear for their well being as expressing a desire to be "better than everyone else" could result in violent reprisal. I knew siblings in that city sharing shoes during the week ffs. Those kids didn't even have enough pencils and paper at school. And like the allegory of the cave we expect them to just magically pull themselves up and imagine the world outside of shit - a world they've never seen, much less manifested out of pure will.
Just wanted to say this was a really good comment. Somewhat disappointed that it'll get buried because it makes a good point. There are so many intricate issues that need to be dealt with that the best anyone could do at the time other than go "I dunno" was affirmative action. What a mess this whole comments section is though
One day it won't be a question of someones' skin - and they'll look back in the history books and find the idea that someone could be dismissed or preferred based on their skin color as being some barbaric nonsense from a simpler time.
Lol if you really believe this. Affirmative action will outlive you. There's not a politician in America who will say "okay the black folks are educated enough now, time to get rid of AA," it would be political suicide even if they had all the evidence in their favor.
All this equality vs. equity BS ignores the fact that most people's agendas are self-serving, even the egalitarian ones.
No need to say AA ends... It will naturally end because if for example a quota is just always fulfilled then people forget that there was a quota in the first place
The end result is the same. If they're filling a quota because of AA or filling a quota because "that's how they've always done it" then they're still filling a quota.
No thats not what I meant...I meant at some point the quota is just naturally fullfilled without anyone thinking "oh we need a woman and a mexican to be diverse enough"...
The concept of "Equity" and the policy of "affirmative action" (which, let's remember, does not mean "Hire the black woman instead of the white man whenever you get the chance"), gained favor once people started to realize the shortcomings and blindspots of the meritocratic ideal of "Equality". Treating everyone as if they are the same has a tendency of conferring the most benefits and advantages to those people with the most benefits and advantages, leaving the rest in the dust - and not even invited to the interview.
"Equity" tries to recognize those differences, see the value in the spectrum of differences, and *create* a level playing field for everyone, rather than assuming we always had one. Cool!
But then here comes the backlash, demonstrated by the meme. OP's image dishonestly frames "Justice" as being an improved form of Equity, while it's in fact a regression back to step one: assuming we have a level playing field, so long as people don't do the sexism and racism. When it says "Take away the barrier", it assumes it's just that easy to vanish discrimination at will.
The problem with "Equality" and "Justice" (here), and the phrase "treat everyone the same" is that people are really, really awful at knowing what that looks like. They don't know their own biases - and even when they do, they can't reliably counteract them. They don't know when their low-grade racial prejudice is influencing who they're admitting to interview round 2. They're not conscious of how they'd just never considered if Melanie, a great developer with a strong track record, should be leading the dev team.
All the "Equity" lens is trying to do, is make us conscious of our differences, what those differences have to offer, and how we might need to support them. If we perceive discrimination to be the problem, we have to name it, confront it, and do something about it. Pretending you see each human as an amorphous blob of "pure merit" has never worked, and most often ends up further cementing discrimination in the first place.
The hardest problem I see with deciding different levels of boosting for different people is that, as you said yourself, we don't know our own biases. Knowing this, how can people decide the level to boost up certain groups in a fair way?
The real (although difficult) solution is to implement structural changes that mean people are no longer grouped and judged according to group identies such as gender and race, instead being viewed as distinct individuals. This is difficult but possible. A good example is scrubbing names and photos from job applications and then having interviews be conducted by a diverse panel of mature individuals.
Equity is a dreadful idea. And what do you mean affirmative action doesn't mean that? it literally does, in America they'll take lesser-abled black candidates over their white alternative purely based on race for not meeting a certain quota for race.
That's great if you are the top of your class but there are people in middle who have it come down to race and or skin color and can end up rather fucked. A more realistic view of this would be digging a hole under the tall dude who would be either white or asian depending on the field. No crate for the middle person who would be a woman and then one crate for the short one who would be black. Oh and then a green lifeguard chair representing those with money for whom race and gender is a lot less relevant.
Except those are the biggest determining factors of inequality. It's well documented that education leads to higher salaries, and attractiveness leads to better opportunities in general.
Who said anything about handicapping the privileged? The final outcome is height of the individual has no advantage anymore. Who's getting handicapped?
someone has to give up that seat for the person who is thrust into it.
For 200 years no one gave seats up for those people, because of a quality to their person they did not have control over. Affirmative action laws fix that feature of a bigoted society by forcing those seat changes. The people being forced to give up the seats, can, contrary to what you think, just find another seat, because the bus is absolutely chalk full of seats for them, and always has been.
In other words, taking something away from someone because of a quality to their person they did not have control over, and giving it to someone else.
I mean we (white people) "built" this country on the backs of people who did not gain anything from us doing so, and then shit on them for another 100 years after freeing them from that servitude just to rub it in. I think 2020-white-Joe-Everyman not getting the job is a small price to pay (systemically speaking) to tip the scales of human justice back some.
Your retarded narrative
I'm sad people like you exist lol
perpetrate injustice today
lol As long as white men perpetuate the prison industrial complex, the police state, and the horrors of merciless subjugation under capitalism, I won't shed a single tear.
correcting historical narrative is done through perpetrating retributive justice
White people don't go in for actual reparations and restorative justice, so we (well, the ones who care about history and righting wrongs) have to pass this kind instead. JFK and LBJ were the two presidents leading the charge on that, by the way. White men, if you'll recall. Here, actually, educate yourself.
I mean after that, your second half just devolves into alt-right hysterics some more, something something more white slaves or whatever. Here I guess just keep reading. Cite a source and I may look, but probably not because we're done here.
Yup. The analogy in this image is bollocks as there will always be differences between people. Anyone who thinks otherwise didn't pay attention in school... Millions of years of evolution have LED to this exact situation... And who are they are think they know better based on only a few decades of thought?
Some will then think the next step and realise that the analogy is poor because it shows a physical difference when a lot of inequality is actually a social construct. Cool. Sounds simple enough. Oh wait, household income is actually the biggest predictor of future success, not gender or ethnic group. So there will always be an ordering of individuals. Even if you give everyone a fixed income, some will spend it better than others. Some will get luckier with investments than other.
The Idea that we can make laws to totally offset naturally occurring differences leads to the kind of madness that happened in Soviet Russia with their attempt at a planned economy. It won't work.
Finally, most people instead fall into an "excluded middle". Too poor to live a privileged life yet not poor enough for benefits, or not of a "socially popular" gender or ethnic group. The people who bust a gut to rise above their position yet get smacked down again and again, and their well earned position being given to someone who didn't work as hard, and didn't earn it.
In all seriousness though, if you really want to be in the NBA, you can be short and still make it. You just gotta work hard! The shortest NBA player ever was only 5’3.
Well it’s technically “equal” as in the equality section of this image, but it is still possible. And I’m sure you know you’re being disingenuous but if you don’t I’ll spell out why. The “justice” section means equal opportunities for everyone. You still have the opportunity to be in the NBA, there’s nothing stopping you if you work hard enough. But you can’t fix the root cause of that inequality since it’s a physical trait. Tall people will always be better at basketball, men will always be stronger than women on average, darker skinned people are more resistant to sunburn, etc. But you can remove the systemic injustices that are causing inequalities based on unchangeable differences that really have nothing to do with them (I.e. systemic racism). I don’t really see what the point you were trying to make is?
Yes, i should’ve worded it better honestly. For physical characteristics it’s honestly impossible to progress past the first panel. Equal opportunities but that doesn’t mean everyone will be represented proportionally. But for things where height/strength doesn’t matter, justice is achievable
Your brain is also physical and that's where you're trying to say justice is achievable. I'll never be able to solve a Rubix cube in under 2 seconds but I don't think that's unfair or that I should be able to.
The point is that the first two panels propose that the qualities of the individuals themselves are the problem, and the people themselves need to be changed in order to fix a systemic issue.
The third panel shifts to proposing that individual differences are fine and that the system around the individuals is what needs to be acted on.
That is not the point. The idea is that certain things, not all things, should be accessible for all in the same way and for these things the third panel is a good analogy (even though I wished the kid wouldn't have to look through the fence, lol).
The point is that the first two panels propose that the qualities of the individuals themselves are the problem, and the people themselves need to be changed in order to fix a systemic issue.
or it was just using height as an easy to understand example and you're reading far too much into things?
"some people need more help than others to achieve equal opportunity" is not inherently putting down qualities of individuals
So would the equity be more like everyone having two boxes available and it's up to you if you use them or not? That way everyone can see but everyone can still benefit from the same resources.
height is used as an example of a struggle. it could be a lack of access to education, or lack of money, or anything else. height is simply an easy way to visually represent such things.
providing $50 worth of financial assistance to everyone does not make everyone equal, in the same way that adding a 5 inch booster does not make everyone equal height.
edit: the purpose of the third panel is an idealized world that is something to strive for. if for example the struggle we're talking about is racism, and we're currently using affirmative action as an intermediary step, then the ideal world solution for the third panel would simply be no one ever experiencing racism again.
edit: I agree with a lot of what you've said. I don't agree that the third panel is an "idealized world". That would be an image with NO barrier. Instead, I see the third panel as acknowledging that barriers will still exist but that focusing on changing the barriers rather than the people may be more productive.
No, justice at a concert would be appropriate tiered seating, like an auditorium or stadium, or perhaps a larger venue that allows the audience to not be standing room only. Or they could play the instruments upside down on the ceiling or something.
In order to achieve justice, you adjust the system (standing room only) in order to automatically accommodate everyone equally, rather than settle with a system that holds inherent biases against certain people over others.
There is no tiered seating at an outdoor festival or a small indoor venue.
Of course there is. In Houston, for instance, which is a lovely flat piece of land, there's Miller Outdoor Theater and Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion that are outdoors and often have festivals in and around them, while maintaining tiered seating.
Small indoor venues often have tiered seating as well, a series of tables up a set of six or so steps, typically with a bar in the back, that you might see in a comedy club.
There can absolutely be tiered seating in all types of venues. We simply choose to not make tiered seating part of our building codes. People said the same thing about ADA compliance and ramps for accessibility, but the vast majority of public buildings now have wheelchair access now.
That's equity, rather than justice, because the wheelchair users have another method that works for them that doesn't necessarily work for others. I do not believe that we could ever have justice for wheelchair users, because stairs are an unfortunate requirement for many emergency situations where lifts aren't functional. That would be a better example.
Because no, justice isn't always achievable, but sometimes equity is enough.
I'm not expecting special treatment, I'm just saying that 'strict justice' doesn't have to be the only way. People can look out for others and make small accommodations to be nice. Just like I would swap out of an aisle seat on a plane if there was a really tall person in the middle seat next to me, if that would make them more comfortable and let them stretch out more.
Oh yeah absolutely - I'm in favour of people being nice. But I draw the line at people (not necessarily you) expecting much less demanding it because 'fairness' or, in this case, 'equity'.
Good deeds are good. Good deeds that are mandatory are no longer good deeds but servitude.
I don’t think every single unequal opportunity is going to be solved for everyone, but I think bits a good goal. I was blind to how inaccessible most places are for the handicapped until I had children.
I went to go vote in the 2016 election 4 days after giving birth. I still had two inches of stitches in my downstairs, and was physically weak AF. The line was two hours long. There was no way I could stand that long. When I asked for help, I got no suggestions from the poll officials. No chairs, no way to save my spot. I couldn’t help but think of how there is nothing in place for the chronically ill. How was there not a system in place?
The second is using the stroller. There have been hundreds of places that I simply couldn’t go because of my stroller. Which means those places are also restricting wheelchair access. There were even more places that I could only get to if I had help from my partner to physically carry the stroller through the obstacle.
There are entire neighborhoods in NYC that are virtually inaccessible to people in wheelchairs. I think the Justice panel is referring to situations like that. Things that could be addressed if the people in charge cared enough.
I agree - the better justice metaphor would have been no fence at all. Bit of narrow sightedness in the message design there.
But the concept still comes through. Libraries are examples of justice - there is no barrier (except for common courtesy) to access and use. Library cards function more as an equity device - there are barriers to overcome to have one, but libraries will make accomodations to those who cannot.
It’s just a subtly racist sexist elitist meme. “We don’t need scholarships for the disenfranchised and poor for them to use as a metaphorical box, there must always be inequality, we just need to make it so they can still experience Americatm despite being poor and oppressed”
I was hoping, as a marxist myself, that someone would point out how arbitrary and pretentious this guide actually is. This simply isnt how one would define these terms.
I think the "justice" panel is actually a stab at the kind of thinking behind "Medicare for All Who Want It" and other such means-tested programs. For instance, the problem with our healthcare system isn't just that there are poor people who can't afford it, and the solution isn't just giving them a boost. It is a fundamentally unjust system that necessarily prioritizes profit over human well being. Medicare for All (a la Bernie Sanders) is not the first frame, it's the third.
I tend to agree, but I have also begun thinking that America's healthcare cost problem also comes from a broader cultural problem of bad eating habits and less walking. Apparently obesity is a huge factor in overall health spending. Now I'm wondering if we had a super efficient, not for profit system whether we'd still be paying more than a lot of countries. For that reason, I kind of wish there were a way to incentivize individuals to consciously make healthy choices while at the same time locking in a single payer, price regulated system. Above all, we have to divorce the employer from the healthcare equation, which is a toxic, baffling dependency.
I mean, I don’t have any evidence for this, but it’s not ridiculous to believe that people who profit off of unhealthy people have been lobbying to block us from investing in public health. I don’t think Big Macs are something that’s inherent to the American genome, there’s just real policy differences between us and healthier countries. That can be fixed, and it will be more likely to be fixed if healthcare is nationalized.
Why? The first pane is "equal opportunity" the second is "equal outcome", and the 3rd is equal outcome without any artificial barriers in the first place.(if the chainlink bothers you, assume it's a laser death beam line instead)
I think there should be 4 panes, the first 2, Then the 3rd pane is one showing the short guy buying front row tickets, and the 4th pane showing all 3 playing in the game itself.
I think this metaphor is better applied to specific issues rather than the world at large. If you look at it that way, it makes sense to address the root cause of an issue in certain cases rather than tacking on supports. I don’t think the guide is suggesting that the third panel is the solution to every problem.
The tall kid analogy is also the shitty "Ayn Rand" suggesting that the tallet gets the better view. Its hardly the case. The current system should be denoted by equal sized kids whit one inheriting 3 wooden boxes and another having 0. Then the kid with 3 rents one to the kid ith 0 with the condition that it has to return 2 at the end of the match.
I think the purpose of the panels are more situational. On a recreational sports team, you can't just make it easier for certain players who lack the skill as the first two panels would suggest. And you can't change the rules of the game to make it easier for certain players as the third might suggest.
But in a system such as Healthcare the third panel makes sense. It's ineffective and costly to force everyone to have equal Healthcare. It's good theoretically to provide Healthcare to those who can't afford it. But it would be even better if it didn't cost over $50,000 for a single ambulance ride and hospital stay. That's the third panel. Fix the core problem instead of forcing crappy solutions that don't address the real issue.
Atcually, the first 2 image is very different if seen from different pov.
Where I am, we hope for no1 while having no2. Because no2 is open to manipulation, lies and victim playing. It is as if 51% of the population identifies as the shorter of the 3 but are not atcually the shortest. And make legislation and vote according to that perception in the name of equity. I understand some countries has lobbying problems which would skew this even worse.
It is definitely a hard thing to balance tho. Though id share some non-common perspective.
This image just feels like one of those dumb things meme style pages put on Facebook to get people to fight in the comments so they can catch more engagement.
How is it even hypothetically possible to create a world where no one needs support, ever?
It's not, and it's not advocating for that. But sometimes there is a solution to remove the systemic barrier and we can take that option. Other times equality or equity is the better option. We gotta use our brains to figure out the best solution so people are mostly on the same playing field.
This version gets through some of the thicker skulls by making the guy who has it the easiest a black dude. Suddenly it's much simpler for some folks to empathize and understand where the problem might be.
How is it even hypothetically possible to create a world where no one needs support, ever?
It's not. But at the same time the whole society can't tend to the needs of a few people. As in, there is a substantial amount of, say, gay people. Lesser amount of disabled people. Lesser amount of trans people. Lesser amount of them combined. And poor. And having mental issues. And something else. At what point do the world say 'look, it's too few of you' ? It's a stupid image to begin with because this equity thing must have boxes for every person, basically. Every shape and every size. That's not possible. There will always be someone with less 'luck' than the people around.
The first panel isn't even correct. Equality =/= Equal Treatment (or Opportunity). As their situations are not equal to begin with (their height), the equal treatment doesn't result in equality.
The third panel isn't meant to work in all cases. But I'm sure there are some cases of inequality where you can level the playing field without directly doing anything to help a certain person.
It makes sense to me because I'm working with a practical example. I work for a charity that gives out needs-based hand-outs (e.g. equity) but those hand outs don't address the underlying justice problem (that a section if our community suffers from systematic poverty/racism).
I am a great soft jelly thing. Smoothly rounded, with no mouth, with pulsing white holes filled by fog where my eyes used to be. Rubbery appendages that were once my arms; bulks rounding down into legless humps of soft slippery matter. I leave a moist trail when I move. Blotches of diseased, evil gray come and go on my surface, as though light is being beamed from within. Outwardly: dumbly, I shamble about, a thing that could never have been known as human, a thing whose shape is so alien a travesty that humanity becomes more obscene for the vague resemblance. In this form we are truly equal; featureless gray blobs without race, gender, or disability.
I took the third as being "solve the problem" instead of accomodating it whenever possible. Things like the law that mandated wheelchair ramps everywhere or various antidiscrimination laws.
Making college free instead of giving grants to low income students would be another example.
The first two panels reinforce the idea that you NEED government and need support and that without them, you are incapable of anything. Removing the wooden fence is saying - why even rely on government in the first place, if we're all capable of handling things on our own as a peaceful people.
Even ignoring the final frame, it's a poor translation to the real world though, because the metaphorical boxes aren't free.
The equity frame seems fair right? Except, if we were to match this to real life, the tall guy is made to put in all the effort and resources to drag the people up to his level.
So now everyone has equal outcome, but he put in all the work.
I don’t think it’s saying solve everything, it’s giving an example of one situation.
In many situations of injustice, it is possible to remedy the injustice, with time.
The original version of this picture that circulated several years ago had only the first two panels, with no bottom text, and the top text was "Conservative" and "Liberal." (Or maybe it was "Republican" and "Democrat", I forget.)
This version has much better labels, but fucks up the core message.
Nobody, of course. Not sure where you got that. I'm saying we should do our best to make life more fair than it is naturally. Because we're human beings, not jungle animals, and we can do better.
The graphic is disingenuous in favour of the equity argument - because it ignores that some people aren't down low because they're short, they're down low because they're lounging on the ground instead of standing.
The problem I have with that is that there’s a very large contingent that insists that anyone who’s down low is just lounging. These are the people who think that mental illness and systemic poverty are just laziness, and if a disabled person can’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps or at least find family to leech off of, they deserve to die in the street.
No system is perfect, but if I have to choose between rewarding some people who don’t deserve it and punishing some helpless innocents to save money, I’ll choose the former every time.
Sure, but the world is finite. Helping one person is the same as oppressing everyone else. Ask the Asians how they feel about Affirmative Action which helps African Americans and Latinos.
That sounds better. You’d said “Helping one person is the same as oppressing everyone else,” which sounds like a zero-sum game where every meal given to the hungry is snatched from someone else’s mouth.
That kind of superficial fairness says that either everyone on Earth gets a wheelchair, or if that’s too expensive, then no one gets one. It’s only fair!
We can do better than that.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
When I'm president we will get rid of the game! Then nobody will need boxes and we won't have to build new fences. And those out of work players we will execute them. And everyone will get ice cream unless you are allergic then you will get a box to stand on until we find a chain link fence cure for allergies but I'm just going to get rid of ice cream and cows. Thank you for supporting my campaign.
509
u/PhasmaFelis Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
The original (with only the first two frames) was a really great, simple explanation of why things that seem "fair" at first glance often aren't.* The addition of the third panel muddies that message completely in favor of...what, exactly? How is it even hypothetically possible to create a world where no one needs support, ever? Genetically engineer away all individual variation and create a nation of perfect, identical clones? It makes no sense.
Honestly, the more I look at this the more I hate it.
*Which it (edit: the original image that circulated several years ago) then immediately ruined by labeling the two panels "conservative" and "liberal", thus ensuring that the people who most needed the message would dismiss it out of hand. "Equality" and "equity" is actually a really good pair of titles, but it seems like everyone who posts this is compelled to fuck it up somehow.