Jordan Peterson

[TheMeInTeam]

Today's unequal outcomes become tomorrow's unequal opportunities. There is no real separation between "outcome" and "opportunity," that is a false distinction invented by people who are against equality so they can be against equality while still claiming they are for equality.

Actively discriminating against people to create equal outcomes trades one inequality for another, and there is no escaping the reality that equal outcomes necessitate doing so.

There is no coherent framework that allows holding people to different standards and then claiming the policy is consistent with the concept of "equality". That's not what equal means.

 

[inthesomeday]

This is not my impression at all. Part of the point I'm making is that outside the West we are seeing a transition from traditional agrarian lifeways to modern industrial drudgery. The kinds of gender roles you see in an Indian farming village are quite different from those you might see among the urban professional class. Just as the gendered division of labor might be different in the Trump family than it is for a two-parent family where both parents work multiple low-wage jobs.

And of course this demographic shift is further evidence that culture constructs these tendencies within these genders. The fact remains though (or at least I’d argue) that the shift in the cultural perception of the gender roles probably won’t fully happen until the material conditions have completed their transition. Meaning, in the present and any past recent enough that a national employment survey might have been possible in multiple countries in the world, the gender roles expected of women in the West has been different from that in other parts of the world, if only because the West completed the shift into industrialism first.

 

[Senethro]

Can you imagine how defensive men would get if they had to constantly put up with snide implications that this is all they're worth and capable of.

 

[Lexicus]

There is no coherent framework that allows holding people to different standards and then claiming the policy is consistent with the concept of "equality". That's not what equal means.

Which one of these looks like "equality" to you TMIT? Is the "discrimination" faced by the man in blue on the right worth getting worked up about?

Can you imagine how defensive men would get if they had to constantly put up with snide implications that this is all they're worth and capable of.

I don't know what you are referring to.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Can you imagine how defensive men would get if they had to constantly put up with snide implications that this is all they're worth and capable of.

Rather, that's the assumed standard for them. Some do get defensive over this, but by and large it seems the majority are willing to work with reality.

Which one of these looks like "equality" to you TMIT?

That's a disingenuous question. If you're willing to use that in the context of this discussion, the apparent argument presented is quite willing to acknowledge that people aren't born equal, and also willing to apply the standards for when discrimination occurs selectively.

 

[Farm Boy]

'bout to say, "...imagine?"

 

[Lexicus]

That's a disingenuous question. If you're willing to use that in the context of this discussion, the apparent argument presented is quite willing to acknowledge that people aren't born equal, and also willing to apply the standards for when discrimination occurs selectively.

"Therefore, true equality is allowing a hereditary aristocracy to exist, because any attempt to level the playing field would be discrimination"

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Therefore, true equality is allowing a hereditary aristocracy to exist, because any attempt to level the playing field would be discrimination"

That's not a credible interpretation of what I wrote. I'm not the one using imagery that, if taken in context of the discussion it's addressing, likens women attempting to compete with men in a career field to children...

 

[Lexicus]

That's not a credible interpretation of what I wrote.

On the contrary, it is a perfectly credible interpretation of what you wrote. Unless you can explain why your logic doesn't apply to literally any attempt to combat inequality. Progressive taxation? Discrimination against rich people to produce equal outcomes. Property tax? Hits people with more property harder; discrimination against people to create equal outcomes. Inheritance tax? Discrimination against people with estates worth more than $5 million, to, you guessed it, create equal outcomes. And so on.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The confusion comes from where your markers for "outcome" are. In theory, per the preamble of the constitution, "all men are created equal." For that to be made real the marker for where opportunity begins and outcome stopped has to be birth. In short, estate tax of 100%, collected at birth of offspring. All parents provided with a uniformity of facility for the raising of their offspring, with their lives to be resumed upon the offspring starting theirs. Otherwise, the rich man's offspring is not created equal, but is given a head start.

 

[Broken_Erika]

All men ARE created equal; It's just that some are more equal than others.

 

[cardgame]

That's a disingenuous question. If you're willing to use that in the context of this discussion, the apparent argument presented is quite willing to acknowledge that people aren't born equal, and also willing to apply the standards for when discrimination occurs selectively.

In what world are you living in where people are born with equal opportunities to one another from birth?

 

[Chose]

I for one am curious as to why these men want to be "surrounded by women".

Yeah, it's a real head scratcher, eh?

 

[Yeekim]

Therefore, we must cease all diversity encouraging activity lest we harm A Man.

Does this passive-aggressive misrepresentation of others' positions feel good somehow?
Or are you merely doing that in hopes that it might pass for an actual argument if one does not follow too closely?
Is the basic courtesy of engaging with what I'm actually saying really too bloody much to ask for?

Honestly, this is tiring.

 

[metalhead]

View attachment 496475

Which one of these looks like "equality" to you TMIT? Is the "discrimination" faced by the man in blue on the right worth getting worked up about?

Looks to me like illegals stealing baseball. Damn right that's worth getting worked up about! *calls ICE* #MAGA

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Unless you can explain why your logic doesn't apply to literally any attempt to combat inequality.

People's born ability and access to resources are different from how they are treated. The former is not equal. The latter can be, but not if you're actively discriminating against individuals on some arbitrary basis which is determined to be okay, as opposed to an alternative basis which is deemed not okay.

Progressive taxation? Discrimination against rich people to produce equal outcomes. Property tax? Hits people with more property harder; discrimination against people to create equal outcomes. Inheritance tax? Discrimination against people with estates worth more than $5 million, to, you guessed it, create equal outcomes. And so on.

Let's operate within reality.

For that to be made real the marker for where opportunity begins and outcome stopped has to be birth. In short, estate tax of 100%, collected at birth of offspring. All parents provided with a uniformity of facility for the raising of their offspring, with their lives to be resumed upon the offspring starting theirs. Otherwise, the rich man's offspring is not created equal, but is given a head start.

This gets you closer, but unless you're doing some stuff with designer babies you're still not actually getting equal starts, though the advantage will correlate to wealth much less.

In what world are you living in where people are born with equal opportunities to one another from birth?

They aren't, and the point of me saying what you quoted was to point out that apparently Lexicus knows this, but is only willing to argue around that fact when convenient. Life isn't fair. I don't like it, but I won't reject reality on the grounds of not liking some of it.

 

[Lexicus]

People's born ability and access to resources are different from how they are treated. The former is not equal. The latter can be, but not if you're actively discriminating against individuals on some arbitrary basis which is determined to be okay, as opposed to an alternative basis which is deemed not okay.

You're making the mistake of thinking that it is discrimination per se that I am against. I am actually fine with discriminating against the unfairly privileged to achieve fairer outcomes.
This is a difference of values between us. I am an egalitarian, and you are not: you evidently believe that some people are intrinsically superior to others, and that it is tantamount to "rejecting reality" to attempt to make society more fair or more equal.

Life isn't fair. I don't like it, but I won't reject reality on the grounds of not liking some of it.

 

[inthesomeday]

More like:

Life isn’t fair because of the extensive efforts of social groups I belong to. I have a vested interest in perpetuating that unfairness.

 

[Hygro]

 

[Yeekim]

I am actually fine with discriminating against the unfairly privileged to achieve fairer outcomes.

You are fine with fighting "unfairness" to achieve "fairness". Wow. Truly an individual with unparalleled moral fiber and integrity like no-one else I've ever met.

EDIT: Snark aside, that famous picture with boxes completely ignores the point that I'm trying to make you realize: what if those two kids don't want to watch that stupid game in the first place and would much rather be elsewhere doing something completely different?