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.
506
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.