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.
Every time I see this quaint but misleading image reposted it’s necessary to make the same comment: the words attached to each image are do not exclusively represent those images. “Equality” could apply to all but the first; nobody uses “equity” this way; and most people use “justice” to refer to criminal justice and punishment.
Plenty of people use equity this way. Maybe not in your circles, but it’s not a new definition, it’s been around for decades. Millions of people in the US alone do not equate the criminal Justice system with the concept of Justice. Perhaps you should recognize that your perceptions are not able to be applied to the entire population. If you ever find yourself using “nobody” or “everybody” and you have no definitive data backing that up, I would recommend re-examining your biases, because what you appear to be doing is attempting to normalize your beliefs while otherizing the beliefs of others who do not share your view.
How would you label the different concepts?
It’s an infographic for children…? I think it’s meant to be simple.
I’m sure 18+ people should already have a more nuanced view of what those words mean. And if they don’t I’m sure there are other materials they can peruse to help them understand.
Apparently not simply enough for people to understand it’s point here.
The OP comment did not criticize the comic for being too simple. He called it misleading. You’re both arguing with a strawman.
Someone disagreeing with something doesn’t mean they didn’t understand it. It’s a really poisonous mindset that hampers intellectual discourse and development.
It’s not misleading. If you can explain it better in an easier way by all means…
I wonder if it was written by a non native speaker or a non American because the literal translation in French sounds right.
I guess that meme I keep seeing that’s asks “did we leave all the stupid people on reddit?” Was wrong.
Y’all can’t understand a few simple metaphorical images that looks like it was designed for children to understand, and are going all out in contriving obtuse reasons for why it doesn’t work or isn’t realistic.
Yes, of course if this was real she could walk to the other side, but it’s a fucking metaphor.
Arguing about the metaphors and analogies instead of actual topics? Saw plenty of those during college, especially when the guy in question was being a contrarian just to ‘stick it to the man’ and look cool to their buddies.
I thought working adults would grow out of it - nah, we’re all dumb children inside, including me.
I see it all the time. A certain demographic seemingly cannot comprehend metaphors and jf it isnt literally perfect in every way they attack it. I think really they know they wont look good admitting they have issues with the message of equality/equity so they attack the method of delivery instead
It’s just such a bad metaphor. Not simple, bad.
The irony is delicious. We clearly did not leave all the stupid people on reddit.
Yea it’s a metaphor. Congratulations. Want to talk about actual, real life issues and how to fix them? Because metaphors mean precisely jack shit when you need to apply them to reality and deal with real humans who disagree with each other.
I like the boxes and fence one more, this just feels super-contrived
But that one always brings out the smug responses about how they shouldn’t be watching the game for free, totally (and purposefully) missing the point
The girl could literally just walk to the other side of the tree, there’s no actual barrier. This one is super ham-fisted because it can spark the wrong side of the debate.
it can spark the wrong side of the debate.
any discussion of the topic would though, because those who oppose the basic idea of equality, let alone equity or justice, know only how to derail and/or project, they are not interested in having a sincere discussion, because they whole heartedly believe that some people are worth less than others, and they will justify that in whatever way makes sense to them because in their mind, they’re all that matters.
True justice would be them watering the tree or something. That dude has been giving to these little shits the whole time. Let it be The Getting Tree for once.
I like owning a home because I finally got some equality.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
That’s just not true. That’s how a person would feel if equity didn’t specifically help them.
In practice that’s equity programs work by hurtingsomeone. Some California schools cut advanced math classes because they weren’t diverse enough, or it was contributing to an educational gap, or some bullshit. Equity requires adding burden to someone, it may be in an attempt at fairness, but that doesn’t make it right.
In practice that’s equity programs work by hurtingsomeone
[citation needed]
Equality people: “Let’s fund these people who are objectively poor, they are disadvantaged and need it.”.
Equity people: “let’s fund people part of this group I can clearly identify by looking at them. They are likely to be disadvantaged.”
Not sure why everyone is downvoting any opinion that isn’t “give minorities all the available resources!”.
It should not be: you need x% of your classroom seats to go to minorities. That’s silly because talented and driven people will be sent away to make space. It should be more like: “you must provide an avenue to help those who can prove disadvantaged status to take extra classes and then reapply to your program.” These classes could be online or whatever to make it as easy as possible for someone with less means but still driven to succeed have a way to better themselves.
“let’s fund people part of this group I can clearly identify by looking at them. They are likely to be disadvantaged.”
Uh… they don’t identify by looking at them you braindead fool. They do means testing. As in - actually seeing if they need it.
Firstly, be respectful.
There is a huge range of equity implementations in the US. My company, for example, has not done any “means testing” when recruiting for racial equity. Nor when it donates to blanket racial programs. There was no means testing when internships were offered to high school students of particular demographics.
When you’re so used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
Lmaooo the only people who use that California talking point are people who have never been inside of a school in California. They aren’t cutting math classes they are offering alternatives to high level math courses like calculus, stats, and data science. Explain to me how that’s burdening anyone??
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.
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.
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.
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.
This image isn’t about making people equal, it’s about making systems equal…
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.
What if resources are limited? There is only one guitar but 3 people want one.
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.
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.
Why is important to see who is “best”? That’s only important in sports, those which are not actually important.
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?
According to the picture, increase the supply of guitars.
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.
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?
You failed at reading the rest of the comment.
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.
The equity crowd should want the poor people to afford a ladder, I do not understand your point.
Then they would put resources to poor people of any demographic.
You’re totally right, ideally yes.
Unfortunately, resources are limited and starting from somewhere is better than not starting at all.
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
That’s actually where justice comes in.
Fixing the system so all people have equal access automatically under the system
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
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.
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.
The problem isn’t even meritocracy or equality as goals, we just straight up haven’t achieved them yet.
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.
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.
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)
“Hmmm, he’s in a wheelchair so we’ll make things equal by chopping off your legs.”
You make it seem like correcting the tree in the last panel hurts the advantaged girl on the left. It does not.
Wtf
Thats how one would describe it in an unhelpfully cynical way, lol
Putting supports on trees weakens them. The swaying makes them stronger.
Ha, I didn’t even notice those. So many memes straight up are shitty for one reason or other.
Handicapped people might disagree
Trees aren’t handicapped people. They’re trees.
you know this infographic isn’t literally talking about trees, right?
It’s talking about children robbing a disabled person for their apples?
That must be it
I do but the last one says it’s fixing the system when it’s propping up the tree and making it weak. Bad metaphor.
Holy in shit, I better… I just need to go. Now. Unrelated…
Big, if true
I rest my case
What do you mean?
They mean they benefit from the way things currently work, so the mere suggestion that the system needs to change in order for others to benefit too makes them so anxious they need to do a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify to themsleves why the idea is “no good”
I get you’re coming from a good place, but we’re disabled, not handicapped
Just a language thing, sorry. In my country this word does not have any negative connotation.
I think it’s much more likely that it does have negative connotations (especially since the etymology of the word itself is negative, there is no way around that. Never mind the stigma it carries), but no one has pointed it out to you until this point.
But now you know, and since language matters, please just say the word and in future call us what we are - disabled people.
I genuinely have multiple friends who use that word about themselves. It isn’t negative unless people perceive so.
First of all, thanks for proving you’ve not bothered reading any of the information I linked, because it clearly states otherwise:
So King Henry VII passed some landmark legislation. He proclaimed that begging in the streets be legal for people with disabilities. So into the streets, with their “cap in hand”, went King Henry’s disabled veterans, to beg for money”. So with cap in hand referred to beggars, or people of no value in society.
The term is also used in horseracing and wagering. It measures the superiority of one contestant over another. This is the belief that one participant is stronger or better than another. The word “handicap” is rating one thing better or worse than another.
It appears that “handicapped” seems to have begun to describe a wide range of disadvantages, including social, economic and even moral standards. The website by Arika Okrent (2015) reports: “Handicap began to be applied to physical and mental differences in the early 1900s, when the new fields of sociology and social work started looking at people in terms of their place in society as a whole”. The term was used to describe people viewed as physically or mentally flawed.Second of all, disabled people reclaiming a word for themselves, no matter how friendly you are with them, still doesn’t give you the right to use it to describe the rest of us (or at all except for if your friends specifically asked you to, and I’d honestly consider whether they actually want to be called that, or that they know that you would react as badly as you are here, so don’t bother to correct you because they have better things to spend their energy on than educating a “friend” who would use them as debate tools to prove how not ableist you are. Hint: doing that is ableist), just like you don’t go around using the N word or the F and T slurs, all of which have been reclaimed by their own community but are still derogatory when used by outsiders.
So like I told that other person:
you can choose to be respectful and make the tiniest adjustment to your vocabulary, or you can choose to continue to use a harmful term despite now knowing full well that it is harmful, proving to me and others just how little of a shit you give about disabled people.I’ve done my part, the choice is yours, and you’re clearly choosing to prioritise your own ego over respecting disabled people on the most basic level.
Which I guess only leaves me feeling sorry for your “friends” (or should I say tokens?)
My point is that words are part of languages which change very fluidly, and you could make the same argument for hundreds of other words.
If the word isn’t considered bad by anyone hearing it or anyone it describes, nothing is wrong with it. Many meanings are different between your language and mine, even though they sound alike or share some etymology.
You can’t criticize people for using the word handicapped after it has been pushed as the politically correct word for decades.
It’s still the mainstream politically correct word in the English speaking West. Using disabled can land you in hot water in a professional or political environment.
That’s a pile of bullshit so big it could only come from an abled person who hasn’t spent a second of their life listening to actual disabled people.
So I can, and I will.
And people can then choose to be respectful and make the tiniest adjustment to their vocabulary, or they can choose to continue to use a harmful term despite now knowing full well that it is harmful, proving to others just how little of a shit they give about disabled people.
The choice is yours.
Putting supports on trees weakens them.
Just like giving free hand-outs to people.
GIviNG FoOD to HUnGry pEople Makes thEm weakeR
Give a man to fish feed him for a day… teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
People like you want to keep a group of people endlessly indebted, while the rest of us want that group to stand on their own.
The people in the infographic are literally working for their own food.
Infographic is a strong word for this meme
Semantics.
Give me a break. There are no solutions put forward by people that argue against welfare other than “bootstraps.” Or even worse “let the weak die.” It has nothing to do with helping people grow. Hell even when solutions focused on growth are put forward to help growth in new environments (training coal miners to do different work for example) the arguments become something about heritage or family history in mining. It always seems like it’s opposition for the sake of opposition.
The main argument against welfare always seems to stem from a desire to have less taxation as they believe welfare support is stealing from them. A.k.a being selfish. There is never any thought about what to do to help those in need.
Stand on your own, they say to the starving person, put some effort into your appearance they say to the homeless person, just stop being so miserable they say to the depressed person
And those people who get themselves out of poverty almost universally state that building a work ethic and an ability to stand on their own is how they got to where they were, not through endless hand-outs and being coddled. Dependency is just like any other addiction and some people rather see these people endlessly fail than actually try to help them move up in the world and make it on their own.
You are an enabler, plain and simple.
The apples in the picture are jobs that pay enough for food and a house within a daily commute of that job.
Not everyone has access to that. That access is necessary before the Teaching aspect can be effective. Teaching only works if the lesson is usable with the resources available.
The ladders are teaching programs tailored to the resources available in that community.
The adjusted tree is updated communities with better resources - better transit, better grocery availability, better childcare options, better school options, better medical options.
This has been “Children’s books explained in painful detail.” Tune in next time for Goodnight Moon. I’m joking. I don’t know that the heck goodnight moon is about.
Okay cool, so let’s raise wages so everyone can afford to buy their own food.
Let’s just give everyone a million dollars because money is clearly an infinite resource!1!!! Brilliant! /s
Equality is letting anyone gather apples on any side of the tree.
I don’t see a fence…
Maybe the real point of the comic is that the girl on the right is really stupid, so we should tilt the tree instead of having her lazy ass move the ladder.
Yet sometimes you can’t choose where you come from or where you stand. Even if you let people stand where they want, some have larger hands or are taller and stronger so can gather more apples.
OSHA gonna have a word about how they’re using those ladders…
The Justice pic: a man yells at the kids stealing apples from his garden, while the kids are running away, loosing all the apples.
I remember this type of post being 90% of r/coolguides
Doesn’t the first panel also have equal tools and assistance?
No. The system leaning in favor of one group is very much a type of assistance.
Wouldn’t then in the second panel still not be equal assistance?
No. “Except for the basics of the system itself” is implied.
I really don’t mean to be contrarian but I simply don’t understand how a leaning tree can be assistance in panel 1 but not in panel 2.
It is assistance in both, but the point is that “equal” assistance in an unequal world (the tree still leaning one way) doesn’t actually provide justice, since those the tree is leaning towards still benefit more, even when the others have “extra” assistance.
The leaning tree represents things that are unintentional, the tree just grew like that, it wasn’t on purpose.
The second panel represents intentional assistance, it was given to them on purpose.
I really don’t mean to be a contrarian
I’m not sure I believe that, but I’m gonna continue to give you the benefit of doubt for a bit more.
The assistance being alluded to is assistance on top of the system to correct the negative effects of the system.
The vast majority of the reasons any group of people is marginalised at all are systemic and stem from powerful people in the past (and, to a much lesser but still abhorrent degree, the present) writing the rules to give themselves and other people like them advantageous conditions compared to others.
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt I guess.
I think I will stay at my own conclusion that this picture doesn’t do a good job of pointing out the differences between the panels.
They could just as easily have given the left child the ladder from panel 1 on. That would show that just equalizing the tools and assistance doesn’t create real justice in a flawed system.
I am not convinced that starting with no tools and assistance (aside from the tree that somehow is assistance in panel 1 and isn’t in panel 2) and then giving them both the same ladder makes that point very well.But maybe I still just don’t quite get it.
It represents unintentional assistance though, not a bias that exists on purpose. Ex: old building entrance is higher than sidewalk, there’s stairs to go up, it wasn’t the intention to cut access to the disabled, it’s a consequence of the default choice.
Some of it IS intentional, though, or (as in your own example) lack of intentionality from another time with a lot less attention being paid to equal access for people outside of the “standard human” powerful people had in mind when building structures both physical and societal.
There being a default at all is a form of discrimination and harm against the people that it disadvantages, whether or not it’s intentional.
The inequality wasn’t intentional, people didn’t put stairs so disabled wouldn’t have access, they put stairs because that’s what you do when you want people to go up and it had that unintended effect.
The tree didn’t grow leaning on one side so the kid on the wrong side wouldn’t get apples, it grew like that because nature made it.
Giving them ladders was intentional, building a ramp too narrow for wheelchairs that’s intentional… And that’s the difference between panel 1 and 2, they don’t have tools that are supposed to help them at first, then they are given a tool and they’re inappropriate for one of them.
Even if the inequality is completely accidental, shouldn’t we do something about it? Like, we don’t have to make everyone millionares, but if the system accidently makes some people suffer, shouldn’t we try to change that?
Never said nothing should be done about it, just pointing out that there’s in fact a difference between panel 1 and panel 2 contrary to what people are arguing.
The kid can literally walk 3 meters to the other side doe
Do you know what an analogy is?
Yes and I can even see if theyre any good or not. This one is pretty weak analogy since the kid can walk to the other side. Its not the trees fault its a bit askew
As I explained in another reply, the illustration could have added fences and other barriers, but that would have sacrificed clarity for a degree of accuracy only necessary for pedants like yourself.
And yes, it ABSOLUTELY is the fault of the system and those in charge of shaping it if it’s crooked and nothing is done to straighten it out or at the very least compensate for the disparity.
I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or just genuinely obtuse, but I’m leaning more and more towards believing the former.
No, it would have added clarity because it would show that the kid on the right is prevented from going to the left side, which is a necessary assumption for the given metaphor to work.
However, that would make it obvious what the real problem and the solution is. Which would be detrimental to the political message the comic is trying to push, because then instead of giving assistance (putting up boards to move the tree), the obvious solution would be removing something (the literal and metaphorical barrier). The author clearly intended to show that providing assistance is justice, not removing barriers.
It’s a disingenuous comic, because equity and “justice”, while appearing differently in the comic, in practice would be exactly the same thing.
Besides, anyone portraying their position as “justice” is a massive red flag.
There are myriad rules and individuals keeping that tree crooked while erecting barriers both visible and invisible. Removing official barriers doesn’t remove the unofficial ones. The only way that those can can be overcome without infringing on anyone’s rights is by empowering the disempowered to be able to scale them.
Also, maybe not the best idea to bring up red flags when your username heavily implies xenophobia and a complete lack of respect for international law…
Having barriers would be unequal, sure. But my brother, trees just grow last time I asked they said they dont really give a shit what a couple of hungry kids think of it.
OK, definitely either the former or both so I’m gonna stop trying to explain the obvious to you. Have the day you deserve.
No since the tree is leaning to one side, so more apples will fall that way.
I didn’t think the tree was either a tool or assistance.
Especially since it is still the same in the second panel where tools or assistance are supposed to be equal.But I am not good at those things. I just don’t seem to get it.
Tree is the situation, that is benefiting one person more than other.
Equality means you provide equal help to all and expect them to be equally benefitted. Sometimes that doesn’t work.
Perfect example would be a Spaniard and Frenchman learning a new language, say Italian. This would be easy for a Spanish person because Italian is similar to Spanish. Not so much for French. Providing them both with 10 hours of language classes will be equality but results won’t be equal.
Yeah thank you.
The part that I still don’t quite get is why giving both people 10 hours of classes is equality but giving both 0 hours of lessons isn’t.
(Or giving both kids 1 ladder vs. giving both kids 0 ladders.)I get that the analogy to a real situation would be to just let inequality run its course and that is obviously not the same as giving everyone the same assistance. I still don’t think the picture makes this point very well.
You said the quiet part out loud. “Equally benefitted” is another way to describe equity.
Providing them both with 10 hours of language classes will be equality but results won’t be equal.
Again, you’re just arguing for equity and against equality. Equality and equity are fundamentally incompatible, since achieving equity requires unequal treatment. Presumably your example ends with the Italian person getting more than 10 hours of lessons because of his nationality. You seriously need to acknowledge that you’re advocating for one person to receive better treatment because of their nationality, and consider the consequences of that being an acceptable practice. You’re trying to reverse over a century of human civilisation’s progress.
What stops the other person from choosing a different spot…
Myriad factors, many of which are out of their control. The illustration could have added fences and other barriers, but that would have sacrificed clarity for unnecessary accuracy.
The tree is a metaphor. In reality it could be job market, one being man and other a woman applying for jobs that traditionally want/prefer men to work.
Or any number of things.
The image needs better ideas. Maybe make the right kid has broken legs so that kid could not freely move to the correct spot
I don’t know. What stops you from living in any house you want?
Nothing equivalent of that is depicted. What makes you see things…?
Clearly they are restricted to their own property. It’s unambiguously implied. So property ownership is at least somewhat depicted. Maybe they don’t own the side of the tree, but clearly they aren’t allowed on each others. Plus, there’s the whole thing about how analogies work. They all break apart if you stretch them beyond their point. Might as well just ask why equality isn’t just burning the tree down. It’s as nonsensical as your question and just as valuable to discuss.
Only if you consider no tools or assistance to qualify as “having tools or assistance”. So no, because while you’re correct that 0 == 0, you need values of greater than 0 to have something.
I did consider no tools on both sides to be equal tools.
Can you maybe eli5 why there is a need to have something in this example?
I just don’t get any real difference from the first two panels.The exact same circumstances that punish the one kid in the first panel still punish them in the second. If anything they are worse off in comparison since the additional provided tools don’t serve any purpose for them but do help the other kid.
Yep, so the point (I think) is to get you to contrast equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. It’s not hugely clear in the images, there are a few things that need to be assumed to make it clearer.
Firstly the goal is not 1 fruit, the goal is to have a many fruit as you need. For some reason these 2 kids both need a lot of fruit. Maybe they have huge seeds and 1 won’t sustain a small child, I don’t know.
Secondly, the tree in the first panel has fewer fruit to drop on one side, and it leans towards one person only. This is trying to communicate that they don’t have equality of opportunity on a systemic level. Both children have 1 significant barrier (height), but 1 child has an additional barrier of fewer fruit possible, and their height barrier is twice as tall. There is also an invisible forcefield preventing movement of children from one side of the tree to the other.
So in the first panel, yes it is unequal because one kid gets nothing and the other gets something, which is an inequality of outcome. The difference in tree lean and number of fruit provides an inequality of opportunity - which is often harder to see in real life too.
The second panel asks the question “what if we gave them equal assistance?” by providing equal ladders. Which is great, but if the assistance provided is only enough to help one child overcome the problem they both face while ignoring the other 2 problems the other child faces, you won’t have equality of outcome. And it can even cause greater inequality of outcome, because the left kid can reach a dozen fruit but the right kid can still only reach a few. For magic forcefield reasons.
The third panel is different to the second, because they’re no longer only being provided equal assistance. They’re both being provided assistance equal to their needs, but the kid on the right still has fewer opportunities because there are fewer fruit. They have more equal possible outcomes, but it’s still unlikely to be an equal outcome even though you’re (sort of) helping one kid twice as much.
And in the last panel, for some reason trees that are straight provide equal quantities of fruit on both sides? Whatever, the point us that the underlying systemic inequity has been addressed and you have proper equality of opportunity and potential for equality of outcome.
Sorry about length, I hope that reply doesn’t cause more confusion.
Thank you for taking the time.
I think I get now what panel 2 wants to tell me.
I still think it would make the same point (or a similar one) more clearly if the left child had a ladder from start on.Then you could see that just equalizing the tools is not enough.
Here I think it looks as if giving tools is worthless to even harmful, which I don’t agree with.But again thank you for writing it up, it was well written and very good to understand for me as a non native speaker.
Glad to be of use! It’s a pretty nuanced area of English, so I can understand how being a non-native speaker would make it even more difficult.
I think the reason they decided on the tree lean/fruit quantity was to try to contrast inequality stemming from historical reasons with inequality stemming from no assistance being provided in that moment. Actively withholding needed resources can have the same effect as a system providing unequal resources over time, even if the historical reasons for that inequality weren’t decisions anybody alive today is responsible for.
I did consider no tools on both sides to be equal tools.
only if both people have the same starting point, but they don’t (in the illustration they don’t because the tree gives more fruit on one side, in reality this translates in to privilege, or lack thereof - a white person has more “fruit” and “tools” available to them than a Black person. An abled person has more “fruit” and “tools” available to them than a disabled person, and so on).
The exact same circumstances that punish the one kid in the first panel still punish them in the second. If anything they are worse off in comparison since the additional provided tools don’t serve any purpose for them but do help the other kid.
That’s the point - merely providing superficial assistance or tools or whatever, without changing the core of the problem (here - the fact that the tree leans only to one side) doesn’t solve anything.
So providing a ramp to a building might help wheelchair users (but probably not a Blind or Deaf person for example) very superficially to access that one building, but it doesn’t change all the other inaccessible buildings, or the accessibility issues faced by the Blind or Deaf person (or whatever other disability that doesn’t require the use of a wheelchair), nor the system that sees disabled people as reasonable to exclude because we take “too much” work to cater to (which is a core and very real example of systemic ableism).
Edit just to add: the one main flaw I find with this illustration vs the one with the boxes (here is my personal favourite example), where the obstacle is man made, is that the tree, ie the system, is made to look natural, when in reality it is anything but.
Capitalism (the core system that is the tree, and it’s branches are racism, sexism, ableism, queerphobias and so on) has done a fantastic job convincing society of the lie that humans are naturally greedy and selfish, and of “social Darwinism” and all that eugenicist crap, when in reality humans are hardwired to work together.
We could also just shoot the kulak on the left and take back the apples she stole from the people’s tree
Ah yes, the communist solution.
The revolutionary solution, not necessarily communist. Like Boston tea party and what followed
Ah yes, the communist boston tea party, French Revolution and … I dunno I don’t feel like putting more effort into this comment
unfortunately the apple tree is the proletariat
This is one of my least favorite Rush songs…
I appreciate the image, but “justice” as it’s described from the image, isn’t what people want progressively.
I used to agree with the picture, everyone should be tested fairly.
Expectations are a bit different though. Execution of what I’ve seen the public want is the Equality picture, but parties switch ladders.
Modern equality isn’t about fairness, it’s about your turn to benefit from the unfairness that’s always inherent in the system. We don’t want to change the system as much as we want our turn.
Life is never fair. The only things that change are perspectives and volume.
Execution of what I’ve seen the public want is the Equality picture, but parties switch ladders.
Nah, that’s just how work towards Equity is portrayed by those who are already standing on the ladder that reaches the tree. I.e., a bunch of fear-mongering about how giving someone else a taller ladder will somehow shrink their own ladder.
Saying “life is never fair” is basically just saying we can’t build a taller ladder, so the only (implicitly unacceptable) solution is to swap ladders.
It’s worth noting that affirmative action is not an example of equity as shown here. AA would be more like giving the left kid the right kid’s ladder so he could stack it on top of his own. Then, the right kid can’t get any fruit and the left kid might get some fruit, but also has a decent chance of just falling over and getting hurt because you can’t stack 2 ladders and expect things to go well.
Equity would be more like offering special classes to kids in disadvantaged communities to help them better prepare for college, and justice would be using federal money to make sure all public schools have adequate funding to provide a high quality education.
deleted by creator
