Youtuber Sargon of Akkad declares his intention to run as an MEP

[Darth Wedgius]

That cartoon is really just a really ham-fisted excuse for supporting the idea of equality of outcome over the idea of equality of opportunity. Of course it completely glosses over the oppression inherent with that outlook.

Really? Because only in the second picture do they have equality of opportunity.

In that second picture they have equality of outcome. They each have different levels of capability (here, height), and someone decided that those should be compensated for. You can at least try to be honest in your terminology.

[Yukaphile]

I'm forward-thinking and progressive because I know there's still work to do on women's rights, and helping minorities, as well as improving working conditions, but that also, and this is key, to be inclusive to white men as well. Don't leave them behind. What Admiral X would call egalitarianism. That said, if you think the only true way to be "progressive" nowadays is to focus simply on the needs, rights, and empowerment of white men, then seriously, you've completely failed to miss the point.

[Madner Kami]

That cartoon is really just a really ham-fisted excuse for supporting the idea of equality of outcome over the idea of equality of opportunity. Of course it completely glosses over the oppression inherent with that outlook.

Really? Because only in the second picture do they have equality of opportunity.

In that second picture they have equality of outcome. They each have different levels of capability (here, height), and someone decided that those should be compensated for. You can at least try to be honest in your terminology.

I suspect his interpretation is more along the lines of "all three now have the equal opportunity to watch the match, instead of just two, which I think is a valid reading. You just can't both abstract complicated socio-political matters into a two-picture cartoon and display the depth of the matter at hand sufficiently at the same time.

I'm forward-thinking and progressive because I know there's still work to do on women's rights, and helping minorities, as well as improving working conditions, but that also, and this is key, to be inclusive to white men as well. Don't leave them behind. What Admiral X would call egalitarianism. That said, if you think the only true way to be "progressive" nowadays is to focus simply on the needs, rights, and empowerment of white men, then seriously, you've completely failed to miss the point.

Progressive and forward-thinking, if you want to use the words in their purest unpolitical and unhijacked meaning, would be to realize, that there's still work to do on people's rights and issues. By identifying women above all else, then name-dropping minorities and only after the sentence is pretty much already ended, mentioning that there are also issues that need to be adressed in regards to men (if at all), you are creating a hierarchy and project it outwards and you are also working this hierarchy into your day to day handling of these issues, because it's ingrained in your head and works it's way into your doings.

Now I know the vast majority of the Progressives want to be geniuinly good people and help other people in needs, but by reducing one part of the population to a foot-note and making them an afterthought subordinated to everyone and everything else, you are not just doing them a disservice, you are doing one to yourself, to put it mildly.

[Draco Dracul]

That cartoon is really just a really ham-fisted excuse for supporting the idea of equality of outcome over the idea of equality of opportunity. Of course it completely glosses over the oppression inherent with that outlook.

Really? Because only in the second picture do they have equality of opportunity.

In that second picture they have equality of outcome. They each have different levels of capability (here, height), and someone decided that those should be compensated for. You can at least try to be honest in your terminology.

Equality of opportunity must by design compensate for differing circumstances otherwise people do not have the same opportunity. To do otherwise is perpetuate a system where the haves can guarantee that their children will have every opportunity and the children of the have nots will get fewer and fewer with each generation.

Equality of opportunity is compensating on admissions requirements for socioeconomic inequality. Equality of outcome is giving everyone a 4.0.

[Darth Wedgius]

That cartoon is really just a really ham-fisted excuse for supporting the idea of equality of outcome over the idea of equality of opportunity. Of course it completely glosses over the oppression inherent with that outlook.

Really? Because only in the second picture do they have equality of opportunity.

In that second picture they have equality of outcome. They each have different levels of capability (here, height), and someone decided that those should be compensated for. You can at least try to be honest in your terminology.

Equality of opportunity must by design compensate for differing circumstances otherwise people do not have the same opportunity. To do otherwise is perpetuate a system where the haves can guarantee that their children will have every opportunity and the children of the have nots will get fewer and fewer with each generation.

Equality of opportunity is compensating on admissions requirements for socioeconomic inequality. Equality of outcome is giving everyone a 4.0.

None of which is anything I'm talking about. I'm talking about the picture that showed Equality in one place and Justice in another. if you think the Justice part was displaying equality of opportunity, then what kind of "Equality" do you think the "Equality" part was showing?

[Darth Wedgius]

That cartoon is really just a really ham-fisted excuse for supporting the idea of equality of outcome over the idea of equality of opportunity. Of course it completely glosses over the oppression inherent with that outlook.

Really? Because only in the second picture do they have equality of opportunity.

In that second picture they have equality of outcome. They each have different levels of capability (here, height), and someone decided that those should be compensated for. You can at least try to be honest in your terminology.

I suspect his interpretation is more along the lines of "all three now have the equal opportunity to watch the match, instead of just two, which I think is a valid reading. You just can't both abstract complicated socio-political matters into a two-picture cartoon and display the depth of the matter at hand sufficiently at the same time.

Then what kind of equality was the equality frame talking about?

(Edited because I missed closing a quote)

[Yukaphile]

@Mander Kami I can sympathize with that criticism, that we're creating hierarchies, though tbf, human society IS hierarchies. It's part of our wolf DNA. And we tend to see minorities (and btw, that includes white people in Africa, or whatever else that term implies and outright states) and women as the most vulnerable. Women, of course, because we still stick to outdated gender stereotypes (females are soft, men are strong, all because of sex organs), but because we're primarily a heteronormative society (straight men want women), it also has a layer of idealization of females to it, which is just sexism from another direction, and can lead to stuff like misandry in response. It's all interconnected. Though I think the LGBT community is also another vulnerable element in our society, because again, we're a mostly heteronormative society. That's slow bending, softening, weakening, but not by much. You can't just discard thousands of years of power structures and ways of thinking that's influenced by genetics overnight. How much is genetics and relates to the power structures in government and corporations as well as culture is up for debate. I honestly don't know. But I really laugh when someone calls themselves "classically liberal" which is really just a code word for "conservative" hiding behind safe spaces, which they sneer at "snowflakes" for needing. I'm in some ways classically liberal, because I don't go as far as others do. Or take George Carlin, who's classically liberal. Hell, I'd see Chuck as a classical liberal. Interpretations vary, is my point.

[Madner Kami]

Then what kind of equality was the equality frame talking about?

I'd read it as equality of input/equality of support. E.g. giving people who were put out of work the same money to support themselves, regardless on if they have money saved up or a spouse that can carry them or have special needs.

[Darth Wedgius]

Then what kind of equality was the equality frame talking about?

I'd read it as equality of input/equality of support. E.g. giving people who were put out of work the same money to support themselves, regardless on if they have money saved up or a spouse that can carry them or have special needs.

OK, fair enough. We evidently don't all agree on what equality of opportunity means, and both pictures might fit some definition of that.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Despite the intended irony of the picture coming off [just a little ] trite for shits and giggles, it's actually a pretty tight little dynamic that's being unpacked here. Thanks all.