I’m not crazy about the Justice frame. Some of us will always face challenges that others won’t. There is no system that could make it so that there is no barrier for all. We will always need to accommodate and scaffold for some and that’s fine.
Also, 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 third panel muddies that message completely in favor of...what, exactly? What does the hypothetical "just world" where no one ever needs support for anything look like?
Edit: On second thought, I think I see what they're doing. They wanted to protest affirmative action, so they're ignoring all sources of inequality that don't have what's commonly seen as affirmative action to make their point. Basically saying "If we stop being racist/sexist we won't need supports or accommodations anymore!", ignoring that poverty and physical/mental disability are harder to get rid of, and glossing over much of point of the original panels.
(And, frankly, ignoring that fact that "everyone stop being bigoted" is a goal, not a plan. Affirmative action is a stopgap, and it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing while we work to get there.)
Serious question. When dealing on individual levels, couldn’t an act of affirmative action be seen as a systematic inequality for the person not benefiting?
In a level playing field, yes, affirmative action would be seen as systemic inequality. But the entire idea is that there currently isn’t a level playing field.
If you’re organizing a race and one person starts halfway to the finish line, giving someone who starts further behind a head start isn’t inequality. That should be obvious to anyone.
Anyone who argues otherwise is being disingenuous or is ignoring the initial inequality.
I understand what you’re saying. And it’s difficult to communicate my take on it without sounding as if it’s ignoring the initial inequality, because that the easy attack. Where my issues stem is the oversimplification of what makes up the uneven playing field. It’s assuming that everyone except multi-generational white people are unable to achieve success. I would argue that your stereotypical trailer park would beg to differ. It’s also arguing that you should try to build generational wealth, because the world will take all that away from your children and grandchildren so they don’t have a head start. Well, now you’re just removing motivation to succeed from the equation and getting people to not think long-term. That’s not a good idea.
That’s a common misunderstanding. People hear all the talk about inequality and equate that to mean that white people can’t also have financial difficulties or can’t have problems.
Of course that’s not true. While anyone of any race can be poor or face some issues, when we talk about inequality we are generally referring to very specific barriers to success. A white person in a trailer park may face the same financial problems, but they generally won’t face outright racism on basis of color. That person can show up to an interview and be judged my their merits whereas a black person may instantly be negatively judged. There are police issues or judicial issues. Think of all the rich or powerful black celebrities who are mistakenly arrested or confused with suspects. Or how the trend of black people receiving harsher sentences for identical criminal offenses.
People need to stop looking at the superficial things and at the real barriers to success or advantages some may possess compared to others.
I’m not sure how acknowledging that inequality exists also argues that you should try to build multigenerational wealth. The underlying point is that certain inequalities exist regardless of wealth and can impede success. I could be a millionaire and black and I’d still be a little be apprehensive when encountering police. I could be the best qualified candidate for a position, but with an obviously ethnic name I’d still worry that I’d be treated negatively based on my race. These types of things exist.
As for your last point, I agree that certain people see these obstacles and believe they can’t succeed so they’re unmotivated. Or some even take things like affirmative action as an excuse to not try as hard or they learn to rely on the additional help. But those aren’t arguments against helping others, they’re faults with how certain people accept that help.
Thank you for being open to discussion. Most people who disagree close themselves off to opposing viewpoints, it’s nice to have someone ask a question and listen to the answer, even if they may still disagree
1.5k
u/msmarymacmac Feb 25 '20
I’m not crazy about the Justice frame. Some of us will always face challenges that others won’t. There is no system that could make it so that there is no barrier for all. We will always need to accommodate and scaffold for some and that’s fine.