You Should Know

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Feudalism: A lord owns the land and the trees growing in it. He has a bunch of peasants who will pick the apples for him. The lord gets all the apples and the peasants are allowed to live on his lands another day. Later that night, they go work on their own farms that hopefully give them enough food to keep going. In the long term they’ll probably starve to death or get kicked out of the house they themselves built. I guess living as s hunter-gatherer in the forest isn’t that bad compared to the other alternatives.

No. The system leaning in favor of one group is very much a type of assistance.

No since the tree is leaning to one side, so more apples will fall that way.

Ah yes, the communist solution.