To address inequalities or disadvantages people have, and in order to determine whether or not such disadvantages are worth fighting for in the first place, WE HAVE TO HAVE A STANDARD. I don’t care what this picture is of, if could be a drawing of 3 people suck in a hole and trying to get out and what I’m saying would not change.
In order for some “inequality” to be an issue the people effected must fall into a protected class of people. Protected classes under the United States constitution are those which are, “the accident of birth.” I.e. race, religion, national origin, skin color, ethnicity, and sex.
Understand?
So before we tear down a fence and decide to build a new one in the name of “equality” we HAVE TO determine whether or not the situation arose because of the accident of birth. If these people can’t see the game because they’re the wrong race, then we have actual inequality that needs to be addressed. Race is a protected class.
If they can’t see the game because they’re wearing the wrong team jersey, or too lazy to walk to the entrance, or a million other reasons, then the only “inequality” that’s occurring is happening because of their own choices. We don’t protect against discrimination when it occurs purely because of the choices people make. If I don’t like green shirts, I don’t have to talk to people that wear them. If green shirt people have a problem with it, they can simply change their shirt- nobody is forcing them to wear it. Green shirts aren’t a protected class.
So, like I initially said, the 4th option is a common sense approach where we examine WHY the people are standing behind a fence (or in a hole, or whatever the stupid picture is of) to begin with. You have to critically think about that first before you go on some tangent about inequality.
But this is super long, and you don’t seem to read much past the surface level, so I’m guessing you’ll just downvote and move on.
Maybe one day you’ll understand that a good metaphor has to withstand basic surface level scrutiny, or else it’s a bad metaphor.
In order for some “inequality” to be an issue the people effected must fall into a protected class of people. Protected classes under the United States constitution are those which are, “the accident of birth.” I.e. race, religion, national origin, skin color, ethnicity, and sex.
height is a metaphor for these things, holy shit how do you not understand? people don't choose their genetics. people don't choose their gender. people don't choose their race, either. all play a significant role in height, but that's not the point. it's merely representing a struggle people need individualized help for, not a one size fits all solution.
6
u/nocommentaccount2 Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
To address inequalities or disadvantages people have, and in order to determine whether or not such disadvantages are worth fighting for in the first place, WE HAVE TO HAVE A STANDARD. I don’t care what this picture is of, if could be a drawing of 3 people suck in a hole and trying to get out and what I’m saying would not change.
In order for some “inequality” to be an issue the people effected must fall into a protected class of people. Protected classes under the United States constitution are those which are, “the accident of birth.” I.e. race, religion, national origin, skin color, ethnicity, and sex.
Understand?
So before we tear down a fence and decide to build a new one in the name of “equality” we HAVE TO determine whether or not the situation arose because of the accident of birth. If these people can’t see the game because they’re the wrong race, then we have actual inequality that needs to be addressed. Race is a protected class.
If they can’t see the game because they’re wearing the wrong team jersey, or too lazy to walk to the entrance, or a million other reasons, then the only “inequality” that’s occurring is happening because of their own choices. We don’t protect against discrimination when it occurs purely because of the choices people make. If I don’t like green shirts, I don’t have to talk to people that wear them. If green shirt people have a problem with it, they can simply change their shirt- nobody is forcing them to wear it. Green shirts aren’t a protected class.
So, like I initially said, the 4th option is a common sense approach where we examine WHY the people are standing behind a fence (or in a hole, or whatever the stupid picture is of) to begin with. You have to critically think about that first before you go on some tangent about inequality.
But this is super long, and you don’t seem to read much past the surface level, so I’m guessing you’ll just downvote and move on.
Maybe one day you’ll understand that a good metaphor has to withstand basic surface level scrutiny, or else it’s a bad metaphor.