naitche

Yes.

By reducing obstacles to qualification in Education.

Not by singling out who should benefit more based on characterisations of their diverse conditions.

That redistributes the obstacles, with out understanding the effects that might have, but doesn't create any greater potential for humanity as a whole.

You are not qualifying Equality. You are qualifying more Humans, for education.Their equality doesn't come into it. Thats assumed.

Better than assuming racism or bigotry for the discrepancies, as characterisations of human conditions demands..

Diversity is the antithesis of equality.

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Because nobody is arguing that people aren't equally able; the aim is equality of opertunity.

You are still measuring equality, whether of races or opportunity. And making characterisations of broad and diverse conditions to do so.

And because of that, the language used by many often signals the reverse of your intent. 

Quote

We're talking about people not spreadsheets, but while spreadsheets are used to prevent equality of opportunity, they're using different heading's. 

You should assume that my level of comprehension, is roughly equivalent to my level of eloquence; for further clarification just ask MigL.  😉

Racial or cultural headings are their own spread sheet.Their use is fine in anti discrimination documents,  To discount their characterisation as anything other than equal in Humanity.

But when we use language in a way that characterises race,  gender or colour as 'oppressed', and characterises the 'privileged' as oppressors, You are discrediting one set of conditions, to give credit to another. There is no assumption of equality in that. Neither is there real recognition of diversity. Only spread sheets. You can't qualify equality.

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

BTW did you whatch Frankie at 25:30ish?

Because you're talking a lot of shyte about fish.

Frankie explained it better at 44:30ish though. 

I did, but couldn't figure out the relevance at the time.  O.K. Fish...... 

I will watch again, and 44:30 too. I might enjoy more, but time...

 I suspect the fish reference I made was miss-interpreted. I mean't to draw the margin of humanity. That being fish is not Human being. That was un-needed so, my own fault.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I was suggesting that you think about the consequences of what you're saying.

Thanks for the clarification. As I read the definition though, I don't see a conflict, or anything to say that an act of discrimination must always involve injustice. 

Quote

Now I'm asking, what does that even mean?

It means, You can't measure the equality of a sum with out 1st dividing its parts. Equality need some thing the be measured against. it requires an opposition, and that has to be found before the measurement can take place.

I don't understand why thats confusing.

Its the mathematical   explanation as I understand,  it can't be done. If thats wrong, I'm happy to hear why.

From a biophysical  perspective,  an identified organism I will call an Identity, is maintained from within its margins. 

Its function is preservation of its integrity. Its form or manifestation, Recognising  only what is already contained within. The content of the form recognise  a commonality of instruction, or DNA.But its maintains its margins or integrity  from within. A closed and marginalised ecosystem. To be maintained as is, the equality of its parts must be assumed.

The conditions and forms of an environment exist by what is brought to them, found or taken from the environment. The environmental conditions that have come together to support its being. 

Conflate one with the other and you are left with 2 opposing forces, each reducing the the other.

Thats as simple as I can make it atm, No doubt semantics can be argued.

From that, an Identity is both a form of its environment, and an environment or ecosystem in its own right depending on the perspective its being viewed from.

So if we are talking about the equality of Human beings, as a human entity, surely that must be assumed objectively, not subjectively.

Or our diverse cultures are behaving as genes fighting for dominance of selection, to decide a final manifestation and acceptable form of humanity. Deciding limitations rather than potential. Form before function.

The line between the identity and its environment is being blurred, if we can't view them objectively rather than subjectively.The Human environment is not subject to our will, we and our cultures are subject of it. Equality can only be  the  reductive  measure of a sum. It is discrimination, and the promotion of discrimination.

.

Quote

"if you wish to address poverty", teach people..

I encourage you to watch the it all, but the relevant part starts at 25:30'ish...

A correction to my last sentence... Should read Critical Race theory. The flaw I see is in the promotion of Characterisation of human conditions.

The language promotes  reduction or restriction of environment, rather than addressing the actual problems it poses. Form before function.

if you wish to address poverty, or lack of education opportunity,  Race, gender, disability  are relative.The form you recognise . But not defining of poverty or lack of education opportunity. Until you address those, other forms of discrimination will just take their place.

On 1/18/2021 at 1:21 PM, naitche said:

 

The act of dividing that sum according to perceived differences in value is, to me, racism or bigotry. The poor are not lumped into a group identity. Poverty is seen as  human condition. Not an identity that can be defined in any way other than the broad and diverse definition of the word itself.

 

 

23 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

 

Not sure what you try to say here, but income is one factor that determines certain eligibility paths in admission. E.g. scholarships. But they can also be part of the evaluation. E.g. a student from a poor neighborhood but with high scores might be perceived as a better candidate than someone from another school in which the average score is much higher than the other school (which, again is often determined by socioeconomic factors). If you are talking about college admissions, they are not based on identities (at least not the way you describe it) but rather but those various factors, i.e. scores, background, compelling CV/life story/essay equivalent and so on.

Another attempt.

Acceptance of a human Identity, in equality, is all or nothing. A human organism.

That identity is marginalised by its nature. Its not inclusive of the environment its subject to.The margins are not yet 'fixed' while evolution is ongoing,  To identify as human, fish are excluded. They contribute no value to legitimacy of that identification. The margins of accepted identity must be maintained as part of that 'being'.

When 'no true Scotsman'  holds true and  been decided, so is its manifestation and evolution. We don't get to collectively choose who represents that condition of being until then.The margin is there, but not fixed while diversity is accepted. 

The function of a Scotsman is to live in Scotland or claim that heritage.. Nothing else. The commonality of  perspective can't  exceed that with out blurring the line between the identity claimed, and the environment. They are inseparable in Humanity. There can be no other characterisation, with out elimination of environment to maintain that 'truth of being' a Scot.

So when I choose to 'identify' with one condition of humanity, and promote a common or characteristic perspective from that point, I must maintain its margins . It doesn't happen  consistently or uniformly but does inevitably for integrity of that identification or 'being'. Its being is centred around the truths  accepted for instruction of being.  . But  line of margin being maintained between  the identity and its environment is blurred. Its no longer clear what is identity and what is environment. The line can't be maintained against the commonality of Humanity and its over all condition or manifestation. 

All these diverse cultural 'beings' are inevitably going to be bumping up against each other in the struggle to maintain a 'valid' localised perspective that takes no responsibility for the summation or whole Human environment.

Identity is not inclusive of environment. Its purpose is to maintain self, Subject to environment.

The manifestation of the human organism is not decided. Critical identity theory is seriously flawed in relation to the Human environment and the condition it finds itself.

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

Do you have evidence to support this claim? 

I didn't get into a college I applied to and did not feel I had been discriminated against. I didn't find anything unjust about them using academic qualifications at certain schools.

21 hours ago, zapatos said:

You seem to have a non-standard definition of the word "discrimination". Discrimination involves unfair or unjust behavior.

I should have said it may be seen as unjust, by the parred off.

But there does not appear to be a conflict in my use of the word.

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Imagine that...

There seems little point to this response, other than an attempt to discredit what I say on un-related grounds.

I have lived at subsistence level for extended periods of time with various cultural groups.

Its quite possible in smaller groups to live pretty autonomously with little conflict and no clear authority figure.

Women would often carry hunting tools foraging with children. Opportunity doesn't care if you are a designated hunter. Children may may be 1st priority, and abilities hampered by pregancy, But the skills can be learned pre-child bearing to take advantage and some enjoy the hunt enough, or have the skills to relegate child care. 

None of these groups were Nomadic, and I under stand there are a lot of cultural differences. But my point is necessity is a great leveler.

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

You seem to have a non-standard definition of the word "discrimination". Discrimination involves unfair or unjust behavior.

I see it more akin to a parring down. shaving something off. A reduction.

Which will be seen as unjust to the reduced. But I will check the accepted definitions to see if they contradict that in any way. Thanks.☺️

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

I don't think that is universally true. Especially in the Americas specific programs might be limited, but as a whole the limiting factor seems to be money, rather than space.

Then money is a qualification or criteria for Education in those situations. The political discussion here invariably points to the obvious lack of critical thinking skills or any meaningful education in people entrusted with making their own political choices. So if education is in the interest of humanity and 'free will'  it should be accessible to all, with out  money being a discriminating factor. With out the money, the space is unavailable.

It would be nice to work out better ways to finance that availability.

Quote

 

Not sure what you try to say here, but income is one factor that determines certain eligibility paths in admission. E.g. scholarships. But they can also be part of the evaluation. E.g. a student from a poor neighborhood but with high scores might be perceived as a better candidate than someone from another school in which the average score is much higher than the other school (which, again is often determined by socioeconomic factors). If you are talking about college admissions, they are not based on identities (at least not the way you describe it) but rather but those various factors, i.e. scores, background, compelling CV/life story/essay equivalent and so on.

While that holds true, I have no problem with that. While there are limitations on availability or acceptance,  there will be some discrimination.

Its the language that demands  one valid perspective take universal precedence that I object to. That marginalise human conditions by assuming that a common perspective denied the rest of us must characterise that condition, and 'our' response, as opposed to, should be characterised to compensate..

 Privilege and race are human conditions. We are not in opposition to Human conditions, or shouldn't be. They are what we have, in the space we have been given. Human conditions do have unique and diverse perspectives that we need to understand. To accept as human to respond to effectively. I agree!  Familiarity, recognition acceptance and response to a human environment.  

I hope to answer this better,  after working out  a more effective way to demonstrate what I'm seeing.

Currently there are limited places available in education. If  criteria or qualification is put in place to fill those spaces, there will be discrimination.

Increase the available space to students. This can be done online and and I believe on-line learning will be used increasingly. Maybe opening a can of worms re-qualification for the established educational institutions, but I think it will be inevitable .

Poverty can be reduced, with programs and policies. Lack of familiarity with educational opportunity and achievement can be addressed. They should be.

There are human conditions that will affect a persons likelihood of experiencing poverty or their chances of gaining places in educational institutions among other things.

Colour, sex, disability are some of them. They are not identities .They are conditions of humanities sum. Equal parts of that sum.

The act of dividing that sum according to perceived differences in value is, to me, racism or bigotry. The poor are not lumped into a group identity. Poverty is seen as  human condition. Not an identity that can be defined in any way other than the broad and diverse definition of the word itself.

Conditions of humanity are fluid and diverse. They thrive or not based on environmental demands and expectation. Their definition and manifestations are clearly understood. there are no qualifications other than a loose but clearly understood word. We all know what poverty is . What white or black is. what sex is. or what illness and disability are. We know they manifest in diverse ways. Human conditions are evolving and not yet fixed, one would hope.

Identities though are characterised. They have fixed margins. Those must be maintained to uphold the integrity of the identity. If you are going to assign characterisations to human identities they have to be maintained internally for the  integrity of the identity.... No true Scott. But the line between what is environment and what is identity is blurred because there is no separation! Its a Human environment. Science is defined by its practice, what ever form that presently expects. A woman is defined by her chromosomes, however they manifest.

You can address the conditions as they present, in poverty or lack of opportunity. I see no need to address a persons colour sex or disability as a problem in itself, or as in any way defining of a persons value or potential to their goals or the whole of humanity. Not even in an historic context, because that implies inherent inequality which is some thing I don't think we want to promote.

I recall a post on this forum where a black woman was discredited as unrepresentative of her black identity, because she did not fit the characterisation we are being taught to accept as 'truth'. It went unchallenged. Yet clearly she is black. Clearly she is representative of a black woman.

Identity politics can only divide and marginalise Humanity because thats what identity infers, margins of acceptance or qualification.

I doubt any one can claim Humanity has become less divided with the promotion of identification with distinct human conditions, over humanity itself.

Yet we are told to double down on our intolerance to Human conditions in opposition. And an identity separated or marginalised from the whole by our characterisations can only be maintained  in opposition. As opposed to...

Thats a rejection of our human environment.

I would think it likely that these early people were often in small nomadic groups where co-operation was essential and a persons abilities were encouraged and exploited, regardless of the 'gender issues' modern man seems to assume are inherent.

On 12/26/2020 at 11:57 PM, joigus said:

For whatever reason, a question that has been in my mind for many years, "what ever happened to Laika?", popped up again yesterday. Maybe it's because I tend to feel sad in Christmas. It's a recurring theme for me. Christmas seem to be all about loss. And I'm a Cold-War kid.

In recent years I've learnt from paleo-anthropologists that we probably owe much of what we are to the presence of dogs in our lives, that goes back tens --if not hundreds-- of thousands of years at the very least.

 We owe a lot to that partnership.

I believe there is still a lot we could gain from it, that its perhaps an essential connection for humanity to our environment,  being lost with the divorce of canine development and evolution from  environmental demands.

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But the point of a universal language is to comunicate.

But since even frogs can have a regional accent, I think the chances are pretty doubtful. 

True communication is only really understood/possible among our regional contemporary's. The further we get from 0,0,0,0 the further we get from understanding/possibility. 

The best we can hope for is, we get the gist at any given distance.

 

Agreed.

But I think it would make sense then to try to finding those signals that are most close to 'universal' .

ie; sound- A hissing sound seems most  often a warning. Rhythm, pitch and tonality can convey a lot of information.

visually,  the same can be said for characteristic  movements. 

Though my point is more that a better understanding of 'alien' intelligence must help in any development of a universal language.

On 10/21/2020 at 10:09 PM, joigus said:

 

I do believe with you that attempts at communication with intelligent animals should be a good laboratory for that hypothetical situation. Maybe we can train some animals to speak once a code is "agreed."

Effective communication could well require  practice closer to home. 

Our understanding of biological communications is not great,  partly I believe, because we are intent on teaching language, rather than communication. As 'the intelligent'

species, we put put the onus on  the 'lesser' to learn from us. Understand our method of communication.  Doesn't make much sense. 

Working with animals depends on understanding the signals being given behaviourally, and creating or giving back patterns that will be be recognisable.

There are different kinds of intelligence that we can come to know, to a good extent. The basis of communication for what is in front of us relies on pattern recognition. It must help to recognise  diverse forms of behavioural pattern/signals for their roles in language between an environment and its subject to understand the broad dimensions of language.

Animal communication can teach a lot about the diversity of language.

On 12/24/2020 at 11:39 AM, Hans de Vries said:

This seems way too high. 

Doesn't seem so to me. 

Those populations though close to it, haven't been completely  'closed'. 

Even if they were, I would think effects to be cumulative, and still progressing

Sorry, I can't verify the accuracy but I recall 2000 as a population minimum for longer term viability.

Then the  following sentence with its  implied biological laws clearly didn't 'strike your fancy'.

Heres one.

Recognition of  biological space  (ecosystem or environment) with  subject matter being its recognised and identified forms. Its referent  points of perspective.

Points of biological space and ecosystem, subject to the same laws of selection as the whole.

'Self'  identification dependent and emergent from belief,  in form over function,  or qualification of form to function. Self identification including the ultimate entropy or death of a fixed or decided ( no longer evolving) form of life form.  Consensus of selection process is complete within that identified subject ecosystem or space.

Self identity a manifestation of belief, marginalised by  measurement or qualification of 'self'.

I predict a revolution for known science as a result with new clarity in almost all fields. Language, Social sciences, physics including quantum, philosophy, law and more.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

So you are saying denying a group of people opportunities is inherently the same as trying to provide them with the same opportunity as everyone else?

Having a system that results in lower life expectancy in some folks is inherently as bad as one that tries to improve the outcome for vulnerable folks? Sorry I fail to follow that argument.

As to MigL i would like to echo Zapatos'argument that AA are correction mechanism, especially as other more fundamental issues may never be resolved. And again we cannot just assume symmetry when it does not exist.

Assume, for example a system of apartheid, but with equal distribution of power. Folks may behave badly to each other but inherently there is no reason to assume that one group wouldbe suppressed. If folks were racist in a system with equal power distribution, the outcome wouldn't require AA or similar measures. People would be dicks but again likely no systematic disenfranchisement. It is only when we add historic elements and power imbalance where we create an inherently unfair system, which we need to address.

No. 

I am saying they are not the same thing.

I am saying putting a value on human conditions is wrong. The human condition is , what it is.  But its only one thing. You can only measure the human condition from a human perspective. Not enforce  your own perspectives on humanity because a few chosen  truths are seen as universal. 

Diversity is not universal. Its not equal. It is environment.

I would say identity is a point of reference. Quantification of environment is not possible with out entropy, 

Quantification is a belief, not a fact. And becomes a point of reference. because environment is potential and to measure it is to limit potential to measures..We each have our own point of reference that is our perception and our Identity. We are  the measure of our  human identity.

Beyond that  all is environment. Each person and organisation, colour and sex, class and preference. Its all environment unless we are presenting our perspective from another  point.i.e if were speaking as an M.D. or in the purpose of one. Group cultures work to provide  reference point or perspective to specific characteristics, purpose or locality in relation to the whole. Much like gene selection.

Culture is not stable to measure, and able to evolve both at once.

You won't get equality until you recognise and accept its truth. Equally.

if we oppose privilege we are in opposition to privilege. Where do we draw the line of what that will mean as long we continue to measure it??

it requires an opposition to meet. So an equal and opposite reaction. Polarisation. Equal only in conflict,  but never the collective point of reference that human race implies.

If we want to see more of some thing out there, responsibility says We should put more of it out there to be seen.

Not  take it from its remaining sources  and throw it into the wind. We might as well do that as throw it at a relative of the real problems. We are going to miss and  can't predict the results. thats not effective ecology.

On 10/14/2020 at 4:30 AM, MigL said:

Why is it always barriers imposed by, or the fault of society, when someone fails ?
What part does personal responsibility play in this ?

Markus Hanke taught himself GR ( and many other aspects of Physical Science ).
It was not provided for him, but he wanted it and he got it.
Barriers did not hinder him.

You, yourself, have displayed a questioning attitude.
One of the best ways to learn about things you know little about.
Yet others come here with the attitude that what little knowledge they have , is all there is.
They ask no questions, but make conjectures and proclaim results which more learned members quickly dismiss.
And yet their attitude, not barriers, allows them to double down and insist they are right ( until they are banned ).

A good attitude, and a willingness to learn, go a long way in these days of internet access and on-line courses.

Yes.

But if a persons short comings  are so obvious, the evidence shows a dis-ability,  Its better for a science forum to accept that at face value.

Not assume less value to science until we explore what a tune up might do.

See what we each can give to make it better.  I would think that the responsibility of a public science forum, to science.

Expanding its reach. The recipient has the responsibility of accepting that with out opposition. They have  sought out familiarity, and made the  1st move.

Ability is only partly inherent. The rest is learned.

The opposition often displayed here to obvious disabilities,  without any effort to understand them, is not a good look for science in the broader environment. It doesn't make the field of science more attractive to the broader environment.

Thats a negative value to science- from the environment.

A demand to meet the expectations of science when  basics are lacking is unrealistic. The environment does not meet your demands. 

It accepts or rejects in various degrees, and according to the properties of its content. Alter the properties of its content. Not the diversity of its content.

Apologies   @MigL   The above is not a criticism of your post,  used for relevance to the point I'm struggling to make of how it works in actuality, according to biological laws..

1 hour ago, iNow said:

More specifically, the tires are already worn asymmetrically on one side. A simple alignment won’t remove the laterally biased wear. They’ll still be more worn more on one side even after the alignment. ...........

 all with the knowledge that this overcorrection is only temporary until the wear is again balanced across the entire tire.

And a net loss in performance, or value to its purpose.

You can't  qualify either diversity or equality with the other. 

They cancel each other out. 

On 11/29/2020 at 1:56 AM, zapatos said:

And I think it is either willful ignorance or naiveté to the extreme to suggest this never happens.

Perhaps you should read up on Operation Varsity Blues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal

Of course it does. But its not inherently true that it will.

On 11/29/2020 at 4:05 PM, zapatos said:

No you didn't. Otherwise I would have responded differently. It completely changes the meaning what you actually said.

If you take something from me and I take it back, I have solved the deficit. I don't need to let you keep it and figure out how to get another one for myself.

That would be fine, but as an analogy its based on a lot of assumption.

Racism to me would be  attributing value to race based on its diversity.

I believe it was wrong the 1st time and is wrong anytime.

It has and continues to have a damaging impact on the whole of humanity. I just don't  believe that damage can be nullified by repeating same the formula  in reverse.

It doesn't work.

How do you measure 'equality' in a whole without dividing it?

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

 So just to clarify, you think that using certain measures are inherently negative, regardless of the outcome?

I now was not directed at me, but yes. But not regardless of outcome.The out come is inherently negative.

Quote

Should we then or should we not for example investigate why certain outcomes such as health or education appear to correlate to certain degrees with things like associated race?

 

By all means investigate.but if laws recognise equality, it is relative. not causative.

On 11/29/2020 at 1:14 AM, iNow said:

 

Your stance ignores the fact that too often people who are equally or even more qualified also regularly don’t get those jobs and functions. The evidence on this subject is abundant and consistent, and you should seriously consider revising your stance which today doesn’t seem to be in any way tethered to reality. 

I  believe it allows for that.

On 10/14/2020 at 1:09 PM, zapatos said:

My wife started an internship at work where they would have a highly motivated girl of color in one of the inner city high schools get exposure to nursing for a summer. One of the girls selected wanted to pursue nursing after high school. She literally had no idea how to apply, where to apply, how to fill out applications, and could get no help from those in her family as they were just as clueless. My wife basically held her hand through the process. Then it turned out she needed remedial math and some other skills as the high schools didn't really make sure their kids were qualified to move on to the next grade in school. Schools in low income areas cannot afford tutors, resource teachers, computers or in some cases text books like they can in high income areas.

My wife had little hope this girl would be successful. It is not that she was not motivated but that she was completely clueless as to how to go about doing it. She was never taught to study, never taught to deal with bureaucracy, buy school supplies, get around barriers to education, didn't know who to contact or what to say to them when she did.

Why is it that when removing barriers to education is suggested, it is always the individual and their lack of personal responsibility that is at fault?

What part does society play in this?

 

Kudos to your wife. Not just for the work, but for her recognition that Colour was relative, but the causes were separate. If this girl could change her colour the problems would remain. 

Removing barriers is good and society does and has played a huge part. Some times the barriers are gone, its what was left behind them that needs repair. My argument is that you can't throw out the problem part of a machine or refuse to allow its wrong movement without  creating more problems. You are trying to achieve a better result with less value over all.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

In the quote of yours that I responded to.

No I didn't. I said it was lazy to make that assumption.

I don't believe minority is the problem either.  

Minorities exist because of conditions that affect all of us, as a collective. Thats why they are relative and why we should care to improve.

Minority is an act of division from our commonality.. And can be an effect of those conditions.

Again. Neither Minorities or privilege are  subject to our 'self'  conditions. They are conditions of our shared environment and when minority is a problem, there are reasons separate from minority itself as an entity and common to 'our' whole.

This is what the language says in combination with accepted biological law. It does not negate your perspective in any way.

It just says you are not seeing the whole object/environment/condition for all it contains. Its parts.

You are seeing  it as subject to your 'owned' environment.   Its relative. Not subjective.

There is more to the 'problem' than your own perspective allows if minority is all there is to it. 

You have identified a division/minority. Fine. You've set it aside.

But you still haven't identified its sum. The division is not helpful in recognition of a whole. 

You still don't know what to do with it apart from making up for its deficit else where.

Dispersing the deficit rather than solving it.

11 hours ago, zapatos said:

And I think it is either willful ignorance or naiveté to the extreme to suggest this never happens.

Perhaps you should read up on Operation Varsity Blues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal

Where have I suggested it doesn't?

It does and is one of the properties of the object you are looking at. Depending on conditions internal to that object.

But you are looking at it subjectively, in relation to yourself and your perceived privilege. It is not subject to your privilege or your self.

Its parameters move independent of your privilege.

Its external to  your "self.' Its relativity is in its common purpose. Not the similarity of its parts and conditions.

Environment makes demands. We either meet them, or we don't. 

Making demands of your environment seldom works to do anything other than reduce  available available environment and responsibility.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

A distinction without a difference?

I think theres a huge difference.

If the problem is an excess, you  equalise  by elimination. And lower the median measurement overall. Its a reductionist solution, based on negative values. Privilege = bad. Remove privilege and ability of response to conditions faced.

Assigning negative value to beneficial conditions (of your perspective or position )will lessen those. If not in your life time, in human evolutionary terms. 

If  the problem is a lack,  you  add value. And increase 'privilege' and the median by which its measured.

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

I want to live in your world. In my world there are minorities who do not get good jobs because those jobs are preferentially granted to certain groups. Some students don't make it into good colleges because the privileged take their spots. Amongst many other issues caused by privilege.

In my world there are people, who don't get good jobs because they are not  positioned to attain that function.

If I can understand why,  the factors that position them there, or what is lacking,  I might not be able to alter their position, but I can almost certainly add value to it.

I think its lazy to say the guy down the back isn't up front because some one else is.The fact is one is in a prime position and another is not. Those positions or points exist. 

Eliminating any of them does not add value to the score.

You can assign positive and negative values to diverse conditions, and eliminate the negative for a net loss. 

Or we can find ways to add value. To improve functionality to purpose from the points of reference we have. Improve diverse conditions for a net gain.

On 11/23/2020 at 2:56 AM, iNow said:

 

https://www.boredpanda.com/lesson-about-privilege-awareness/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

Form follows function

The above link shows that as a collective we have diverse points of reference or perspective to the purpose or function of throwing an object into a basket.

Some favourable, others less so.

It doesn't help us understand or utilise those points, or  to maximise their function or purpose.

There is no value to any of those points but what we assign. They exist only in relation to the function or purpose at hand.

If 'we'  identifies  a collective.

So yes, if your purpose is  to equal - outcome, or functionality, diversity of form or function is a hindrance to those predictions.

Form would decide function if thats the  measure you use. Its hindering  that equal-outcome if  you think the form of your privilege and position gives you greater value. And you think you can correct that by making the value a negative. That does nothing to increase response ability for whats needed.

If your goal is reliability to function,    you need to look at and understand the individual points of reference.  (or diverse parts )  Their conditions and position . Their properties and relativity of purpose . How the the overall conditions of that  space are affected by position, relative to the other points of its existence.

You are searching and reaching potential in those actions. Maximising abilities of response to a changing environment. 

4 hours ago, MSC said:

For one; equating a potato and a dog to the dichotomy of a wealthy or privileged to that of a poor or disenfranchised individual is blurring the lines of degree of morphological differences in physiological diversity within one species. 

Secondly, whether their are greater or smaller degrees of differences between people is besides the point, who decides what variant is more valuable than another? 

Thirdly, the argument you are currently employing is not unlike the arguments that were used to justify slavery and eugenics. At one point in time, it would not have been a surprise to hear this variation of your argument: 

Maybe now you'd like to show us your slideshow on Phrenology? Your entire argument seems to imply that those who happened to be born in privileged groups are somehow superior to those that weren't. Which is a slap in the face to everything we know of human history. Privilege resides where power resides, power resides where people believe it resides, peoples beliefs are fickle. We are never more than one revolution away from power and privilege moving on to a different group. 

If you want to argue against equality, defined as the fair and just treatment of everyone, then you're going to have to justify why any of these differences between groups of people has weight in determining who should be valued more. Women and children first? Rich people first? Monarchy? Politicians? Best and brightest? Church? God? Are the altruistic or self serving more deserving of the support of society? You'll also have to explain why this ruling class of yours, does not seem to be able to keep a hold of power for prolonged periods of time. If there is a natural order to things, then why do people never seem to fall into and stay in order?

You are more familiar and have more knowledge of @VenusPrincess  than I have. You are looking at their post from a different place than I am.

I saw no argument against equality of value. Only an assertion that measurement of equality against conditions, or points of perspective implies one.

What is the measure of equality? Nothing.

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No one ever works to solve a problem they are unaware of. It seems self-evident that people must be made aware of the issues caused by privilege prior to resolving those issues.

But they aren't caused by privilege.

On 11/23/2020 at 2:56 AM, iNow said:

 

Teaching about privilege:

https://www.boredpanda.com/lesson-about-privilege-awareness/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

I have a lot of problems with the idea that promoting 'our'  privileges does anything whatsoever to help those less able, other than to increase their sense of helplessness, and the numbers who will qualify as less-able.

If privilege is the problem, All you can do is reduce the problem. Privilege.

Disabilities, like privilege, aren't a single thing that can be simply addressed by broad group classifications and redirection of resources to 'classes' of need.

It ignores  problems faced. This idea doesn't ask us to recognise  the problem in front of us..  Only a classification we are asked  to compensate.

Not help overcome. We just work around it and hope to make it less visible.

It doesn't value diversity.  It promotes an idea that everything should look the same where ever we stand.

Its a promotion of negative values and expecting a positive result.

A rejection (get rid of it) of environment instead of recognition ( what can I add to create a positive value.). 

The reality of whats in front of me  to deal with, I'm expected to base on beliefs about classifications of people.

And what compensation I owe for my greater value.

My own understanding of biophysics and the language that expresses it says this ideology or biological message is faulty and counter intuitive to further evolution. 

Potential is subject to how we  respond to the conditions we are able to recognise. Which requires we first come to know them. Familiarise. Recognise as part of our own conditions to accept and improve.

That says conditions should decide our responses, instead of us responding to conditions. That the value is in our own condition, and not our ability of recognition and response. So its now a question of how to repeat your own conditions universally. Anti-diversity. Conditions decided based on value belief.

It is backwards to me.

 Imposing singular perspectives of conditions, whether or not they apply to the reality in front of you. 

Its the same as  Pedigree Dog Breeders who like to say  "form follows function" 

So decide the form and wonder why function doesn't follow'.

There is cognitive dissonance on one side of this argument or the other.

You see value in form. I see it in function.