1263
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Amilo159@lemmy.world to c/youshouldknow@lemmy.world

Why YSK: because what seems like equal situation from surface isn't always equal opportunity for all. And even when equal measure of help is provided, it might not be equally useful.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Oyster_Lust@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

Equality should be in protection of rights. People are not equal, and never will be. They should have equal rights, though.

Steve Vai is a better guitarist than I am. He shouldn't have his fingers broken so that we both have equal ability to play the guitar.

Trying to make people equal in every way is evil. It only brings the best in every field down to the level of the worst, since there's no way to bring everyone up to the level of the best in every field.

[-] ImGonnaTryScience@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

That's not the point of equity. The point is to compensate for disadvantages people couldn't prevent and can't fix on their own. Stairs are equal. They work the same way for everyone. But someone in a wheelchair can't climb stairs.

[-] Reliant1087@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

But you can reframe it. People don't have equal mobility but everyone has an equal right to access a place, so you have stairs and ramps. You can't make everything a ramp or stair to create equality.

[-] duffman@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

That's not how equity works in practice. It doesn't examine anyone's actual capabilities or disadvantages. They bucket large groups of people into categories they deem worthy to receive resources, despite their actual need. Every person has their individual story, challenges, and priveleges yet equity assumes otherwise, that you deserve compensation based on the group you were assigned to, not what you actually need.

[-] ssboomman@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

That’s just not true. That’s how a person would feel if equity didn’t specifically help them.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 3 points 1 year ago

It may work like that in practice in fields where it is extremely difficult to design solutions that are adapted to each person. Imagine you have to tailor laws and their application specifically to many millions of individuals, how do you do that without creating more manageable categories?

[-] hark@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Nobody is advocating for breaking fingers. Following the example set by the image, if someone were to have, for example, issues with their hands, then they should be provided tools to help them play the guitar. Do you think someone with a disability shouldn't be allowed to do things even though tools to let them do those things exist? Keeping up such barriers is how we miss out on amazing talents hampered by obstacles that could be overcome provided adequate access.

[-] Kage520@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I think what he was saying, but slightly missed, was, if both people needed guitar classes, we should not give the guy with the hand issues the only available seat.

Really though, if we just spend a bit more on education, there could be seats for everyone! So maybe the last picture could be fertilizing the tree to make it bigger or something.

[-] readthemessage@lemmy.eco.br 2 points 1 year ago

What he said is something closer to "We should not tax the rich to level the playing field" and that is a very bad take.

[-] JustAThought@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

There is no taking away. Someone will have access to guitars that wouldn’t otherwise. Someone somewhere let a great player hear a guitar, see how it’s played, maybe even gave them their first guitar. it’s about giving not taking away.

[-] June@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

This image isn’t about making people equal, it’s about making systems equal…

[-] thereisalamp@reddthat.com 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You entirely missed the point of this picture.

This picture isn't about breaking Steve's fingers so you can both play shitty guitar. It's about making sure you can both access a guitar and lessons to learn.

The equality picture would be shoving a guitar in each of your hands and a coupon for lessons, while failing to address that you live 2 hours away from the teacher while he lives next door.

Eta: equity would be providing you with a free buss ride to the teachers house 2 hours away. This gives you all the tools to get guitar lessons, but, you might not be able to take advantage of this because a 5 hour commitment isn't the same as a 1 hour 5 minute commitment and you lose out on opportunity cost. You get free guitar lessons and a ride, but the system is broken. Justice is fixing the system so that there's enough guitar teachers within a reasonable distance. Like say, making sure that no one is more than 20 minutes from a guitar teacher.

[-] whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

It's about making sure you can both access a guitar and lessons to learn.

We are already trying to do that. It's called equality. Also known as equality of opportunity, where everyone has access to acquire a guitar and guitar lessons. How does "justice" augment this?

[-] thereisalamp@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

You failed at reading the rest of the comment.

[-] duffman@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

The picture misses the millions of people who are too poor to afford a ladder and don't belong to one of the groups targeted by the equity crowd.

[-] readthemessage@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 1 year ago

The equity crowd should want the poor people to afford a ladder, I do not understand your point.

[-] duffman@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Then they would put resources to poor people of any demographic.

[-] readthemessage@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 1 year ago

You're totally right, ideally yes.

Unfortunately, resources are limited and starting from somewhere is better than not starting at all.

[-] thereisalamp@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

This is where justice would come in. Fixing the system so that resources are distributed automatically to provide everyone with equitable access to the tools

[-] thereisalamp@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's actually where justice comes in.

Fixing the system so all people have equal access automatically under the system

[-] JustAThought@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago

I think your problem is that you think that something will be taken away. Try to think in terms of the giving. Steve is not going to have anything taken away. Someone will have access to guitars that wouldn’t otherwise. Steve will be fine.

[-] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

What if resources are limited? There is only one guitar but 3 people want one.

[-] ssboomman@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Then instead of letting the super advantaged, super rich take all the resources we should work on getting and producing more. Which probably starts with taking from the people who are hoarding them all.

[-] phillaholic@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

According to the picture, increase the supply of guitars.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

At birth there are situations that give people advantages that have nothing to do with ability. These advantages are systemic, where certain people will have better access to opportunity (apples) than others. The goal should be that the opportunities are equal so no one has a head start. The best apple picker will pick more apples instead of the person born with an orchard and apple picking machinery who very well may be a shit apple picker.

For your example, we'd end up with the best musicians becoming popular, not the ones where their parent could afford to give them private lessons since childhood and had industry connections to make them big where they wouldn't otherwise.

It's not about equality of outcomes, it's about equality of opportunity. No one should start a race with a head start because then you don't know who the best runner is. Everyone should start equally and everyone should have equal access to the same shoes, equipment, and practice opportunity, otherwise we can't see who's actually best without an advantage.

[-] kool_newt@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago

Why is important to see who is "best"? That's only important in sports, those which are not actually important.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago

The comment above was about having the best guitarists. Regardless, why wouldn't it be important to see who's best? Why is it better to see who has the most advantages that weren't earned? The argument for capitalism is that whoever can do the best gets rewarded the most. It's fundamentally flawed because capitalism promotes creating barriers and ensuring the playing field isn't even though.

No matter what the situation, having the best people doing the jobs will create the best outcomes for the most people. In what way is this not desirable?

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

You'll notice the Steve Vai apple picker (left) never has a reduction in apple access.

Your suggestion some harm might come to Steve Vai doesn't make sense, he can access apples as well as ever

[-] HamSwagwich@showeq.com -2 points 1 year ago

While your statement is true, the result is Steve Vai not having a motivation or reason to become the top apple picker. If his extreme efforts to become the best in a given field are nullified by a system that will give extra to someone who isn't as good at it so that they can be as good as Steve, why bother with putting in that effort?

So yes, Steve is harmed by stealing his motivation and (potential) recognition by making the system anti-meritocracy and more about everyone being the same.

The equation changes when we live in a post scarcity society, but we didn't live in one. Therefore we have motivational pressure to find a niche we are good at and exploit it to survive. Taking away that niche you might be talented at while others aren't as talented, harm those people who now don't have that niche to exploit.

Even in a post-scarcity world, where we have unlimited access to energy (and thus can create anything we need), the motivation for social recognition through innate talent and ability is going to drive the human race forward. Taking that away kills the human spirit and possibly the human race.

I bet you are against designer babies/gene editing to give a child a huge advantage over it's peers, right? Because that is the logical conclusion of this metaphor and "justice." Genetically engineering every baby to have equal access to abilities and talent.

[-] DulyNoted@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Meritocracy is a myth though, perpetuated by those lucky enough to benefit from existing systems.

It's completely circular. I'm on top and the people who are on top are the best so because I'm on top I'm the best.

It never accounts for all the myriad non-merit related ways folks get on top in the first place.

[-] IzzyJ@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The problem isn't even meritocracy or equality as goals, we just straight up haven't achieved them yet.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I posted this to a comment further down, but thought I should post it up here:

At birth there are situations that give people advantages that have nothing to do with ability. These advantages are systemic, where certain people will have better access to opportunity (apples) than others. The goal should be that the opportunities are equal so no one has a head start. The best apple picker will pick more apples instead of the person born with an orchard and apple picking machinery who very well may be a shit apple picker.

For your example, we'd end up with the best musicians becoming popular, not the ones where their parent could afford to give them private lessons since childhood and had industry connections to make them big where they wouldn't otherwise.

It's not about equality of outcomes, it's about equality of opportunity. No one should start a race with a head start because then you don't know who the best runner is. Everyone should start equally and everyone should have equal access to the same shoes, equipment, and practice opportunity, otherwise we can't see who's actually best without an advantage.

[-] readthemessage@lemmy.eco.br 7 points 1 year ago

What you mean is something close to "We should not tax the rich to level the playing field" and that is a very bad take.

No one wants to bring everyone up to the level of the best in every field. What people want is for the baseline conditions to be good enough so everyone has the opportunity of having a decent life.

It is such a large difference.

[-] ssboomman@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Why are you arguing against something literally no one said? How is this graphic trying to ‘make everyone equal in every way’? How is the person on the left of the graphic disadvantaged in any way? (That last one answers your idiotic ‘breaking fingers’ point)

[-] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

"Hmmm, he's in a wheelchair so we'll make things equal by chopping off your legs."

[-] ssboomman@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

You make it seem like correcting the tree in the last panel hurts the advantaged girl on the left. It does not.

this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
1263 points (88.7% liked)

You Should Know

33397 readers
1178 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS