I do not believe in equality

Khane_sl said:

Did anyone say "you're lucky"? And even if someone does say that is it worth getting bent out of shape over? People, for whatever reason, are taught to be humble. We say shit like that under completely false pretenses just to adhere to that silly mantra we are all taught as children. "Nobody likes a bad winner". I mean, did you guys refuse to shake hands after a little league game you won? Or say "bad game, you suck"? Were you a poor sport?

But even disregarding that, can you point out to me what the hell that moron was talking about when he said I was telling people to check their privilege?

Click to expand...

He was pointing out that "check your privilege" is simply a more aggressive way of saying what you said. And he was pointing it out because what is the use in stating that people should 'acknowledge the disadvantages of others' in a thread talking about inequality? Does that specify what the issue is? Who is affected? Is it really a "group" or is that simply a correlation due to other factors? As you said,its a polite simplification of a very complex issue. It's not accurate, or useful in a debate, it's used aspolitenessso people who succeed don't rub it in the faces of those who don't. So why do it in a threaddebating the causes of inequality(IE the specific causes)?

It IS a form of politeness, and people use to deflect very uncomfortable analysis of WHY those disadvantages exist. It's easier to just say "these people are luckier" than it is to say "these people are luckier because their fathers didn't abandon them". But is it useful? This is a thread about discussing that topic, and rather than pursuing the why, it seems like the ultimate goal is instead to get people to all signal how righteous they are by admitting "I'm lucky".

If I wanted to feel better about myself, I'd break down and go to church and talk about what an evil sinner I was so I could have a ton of people blow smoke up my ass about how brave and wonderful I was for admitting it. But I don't find that ritual particularly useful. I mean, I do sin, like legitimately I do some bad things--but simply stating that in the super general sense doesn't help, or make things better; I need to analyze thewhy, the context of it and fix it.

And here is where Cad said exactly that.

Cad_sl said:

Well I think you're using the terms differently so you're talking past each other (standard for rerolled). When I say equality of opportunity, I am assuming that you are doing what is possible to maximize the opportunities given to you by society; so for example your parents aren't hamstringing you by teaching you a different language, teaching you that school is for suckers, or calling you an Uncle Tom for learning the white man's way. To my mind, that child had opportunities; but he, through his parents, decided not to use them.

You're rolling up parents/culture/location/everything into "opportunities" and saying if a kid's parents sabotage him then he didn't have opportunities. And yea, I think everyone would agree with that, defined that way. But it's also an intractable problem until you start removing kids from parents. So I think most people are talking about the first definition.

But whatever, if thats what you're trying to say, then yes, some people are probably just fucked. So what? What are you prepared to do? What do you suggest we do? If it's just a suggestion that we check our privilege, I think you know how thats going to go over.

Click to expand...

He's using that catchphrase to ask you what the relevance of that acknowledgement is in a debate about the why of something. You tried to explain that 'understanding' is important--but what is being understood here? The size and scope of the statement make it so obtuse that it's not relevant (Again, we don't know the why, how, or anything--simply that some nebulous groups got the shaft), which makes it as silly as 'check your privilege'--unless we know exactly the method of action, that statement is functionally meaningless. Its AS meaningless as saying "just acknowledge people have it worse and some groups are fucked" (Paraphrasing). This is in the national spotlight now, and since this kind of 'polite sentiment' is reaching that kind of level, yeah, you're going to find that polite statements in a thread meant to debate this subject, aren't going to be show stoppers.

Cad_sl said:

Oh I agree things happen every day that are beyond our control. There's no doubt about that.

But success in life isn't one lucky break or one bad break unless you're a lottery winner or you were involved in some horrific accident or cancer. Success in life is an accumulation of good decisions or bad decisions, and I guarantee if we analyze any person's life we can see that at work.

Click to expand...

I'm sure we could see a lot of things. Decisions, chance, effort, etc. Making a good decision doesn't delegitimize my effort, so why would chance (and capitalizing on good fortune) do it?

Titan_atlas_sl said:

Oh I didn't think your avatar was you. I do get you and Brahma mixed up sometimes. Similar conversation styles. As far as your post, I believe opportunities are equal. Your version of unequal is wrong. Based in flawed philosophy.
As far as the education itself no they are not equal. Because cream rises to the top. Schools with better baseline intelligence from similar family environments will pull themselves up. They will feed each other and become better, smarter. That is why nice neighborhoods outperform ghettos.

Click to expand...

What the fuck does THIS shit mean? Admit it man...you confused the negro avatars. Similar posting styles my ass.

Cad_sl said:

Because it's an obvious predicate. Saying "you are a success due to factors beyond your control" goes straight to "you didn't earn your success" and then "you don't deserve your success." Otherwise there's no point to even making that assertion.

There are no "innocent points".

Click to expand...

Luck plays a large role in our lives both in our successes and our failures. John Grisham, before finally finding a publisher for his first novel A Time to Kill was rejected over twenty times. JK Rowling captains a billion dollar franchise and she was rejected seven our eight times. How could publishers not see the obvious value in what they had in their hands? John Kennedy Toole killed himself before his manuscript was ever published. It was only through the tireless work of his mother that A Confederacy of Dunces ever saw print. It won a Pulitzer.

When it comes to luck we do may not have much say in the outcome of any particular event but we do have control over the number of attempts we make. Grisham and Rowling both belong to an important subset of people - the subset of people that did not give up. I got all this from reading The Drunkard's Walk and I have to say I really like that view on chance. Just be stubborn as fuck in the face of randomness.

All avatars do look alike

Let's merge this thread with the free will thread.

Praise be unto the random number generator.

fanaskin_sl said:

confusing luck with persistence?

Click to expand...

I have not confused luck with persistence, no.

Cad_sl said:

Because trying to say anything you did was due to chance is to say it was out of your control = wasn't due to you = you don't deserve it.

I'm sorry you think thats just some innocent observation but it's not.

Click to expand...

It isn't, anything you do is not solely due to your effort, there are many factors at work. How is that not simply an observation of how shit is? You're taking it to the extreme and saying you don't deserve it if you can't isolate the genesis of it to your specific effort alone, and that's just insane to me. How can you even get through the day like that?

Seriously, fuck hodj for poisoning everyone with this extremism crap.

chaos_sl said:

Why not acknowledge it? Do you not think there is some benefit to examining your life and finding points where things could have gone differently? Good or bad.

Click to expand...

You're not examining your life by making those broad statements, that's the issue. I won't 'acknowledge' I was more advantaged than X person because I don't know if I was (I could be, sure, advantages do exist, it isn't all equal..but society does a decent job of regulating what it can). You're asking for a relative examination against unknown variables. Which becomes even less useful as we broaden it out to a group level.

chaos_sl said:

You're turning this into a competition analogy and it doesn't fit. Some measure of fortune does not diminish your accomplishments, and if just acknowledging that fortune does that to you then maybe you have some issues you need to work on. There's no asterisk, there's no competition, it's just a string of shit that happens until the universe goes dark.

Click to expand...

We exist in a society with scarcity, the competition analogy absolute does fit. How many of your job is there, Chaos? Can billions of people have your job? No? So there is competition for your wealth and happiness. You got advantages, you have an asterisk compared to other people who didn't get those advantages (Imagine if your bosses son, with no experience, got a job the same as yours--is his earning that job the same as you?). Take the thought to the final step, that's usually the only way to see why people get angry at simplifications.

chaos_sl said:

You're right, making sweeping generalizations like "you're white so you got ahead" is stupid. But more realistic ones, like "that professor who took you aside and showed you how to work the system and graduate in half the time really did you a favor" isn't, and it doesn't diminish the work of the person who did it.

Click to expand...

I think that's what people were pointing out. Specifics are good, but simply 'acknowledging' based on sweeping phrases? What use is there? It's meant as a polite conversation/debate stopper, and now in the wider world its being used to aggressively stop the precisely responsibility of people and inequality. It's frustrating when people constantly talk about inequality and the conversation either devolves into platitudes about morality OR is aggressively stopped because certain aspects of responsibility are deeply uncomfortable.

chaos_sl said:

Seriously, fuck hodj for poisoning everyone with this extremism crap.

Click to expand...

What?