Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your response was well written, just not well founded.

For example, in the excerpt above you state that DEI won’t destroy incentive. DEI doesn’t stop at getting into college, or getting into graduate school or getting that first job. Harris is the perfect example of that. She was vaulted from an unknown Senator to VP because of her race and gender. Biden explicitly stated that he was going to pick a minority woman as his running mate, thus excluding many qualified candidates from the running. DEI can do the same thing at the corporate level. A DEI hire is promoted up the management chain, thus excluding other qualified, perhaps more qualified candidates. It is discrimination, pure and simple.

To your point that there will always be differences in individual abilities and motivation, that is true, however, the motivation and incentive for those with higher abilities are most certainly damaged if they are passed over for acceptance, hiring or promotions in favor of DEI. To say that it does not potentially destroy incentive is disingenuous at best.

Harris is the epitome of why DEI is bad. There is no possible way a person with her lack of ability and sensibilities would even be in consideration if not for DEI, as evidenced by her performance when she ran for the Democratic nomination. Everybody knows it, even most Democrats, but they are willing use DEI as the reasoning for their decision to “hire” her for one of the highest and most important and influential positions in the entire world. Many Harris voters state their reason for voting for her is that she is black and she is a woman. That is VERY dangerous and that is where DEI has taken us. Implementing this idealistic, utopian perspective in our society is a recipe for complete disaster.

Well written but not a response to the argument that I was making which is the equity , with the goal of equality of outcome is not Marxism . Not even close. Marxism promotes equality of outcome but that does not make all who promote equality of outcome Marxists. . So you have basically utilized a straw man logical fallacy. However, since you’re intent on disparaging DEI from a different angel , I will deal with it. My first thought is that you do not know, and cannot know if other more qualified candidates were passed over, although I will concede that some may have been. DEI can be seen as affirmative action 2.0 and the same argument was made against affirmative action. However, with affirmative action, race and gender were but one factor and would serve as a tie breaker if all else were equal

Having said that, I will add that for the most part, those who rail against DEI -or affirmative action- do so not so much concern for the effects on those left out as individuals. The wrath is born of thinly disguised racism and sexism which was and is the chorus of outrage directed at Harris. They dragged her sexual history through the mud, accused her of “sleeping her way to the top” and questioned her blackness. It obvious that not matter what credentials she brought to the table, or what she accomplished , she would be derided as the DEI hire. You are not in good company

 

[dblack]

Sorry. Not buying it. There is no conflict between equity and equal rights. One does not preclude the other.

To me, they obviously do. But I've found that progressives often have a very different concept of "rights" than I do.

Equity requires that those at a disadvantage be given the tools and resources needed to maximize their potential to achieve equality.

"Special rights for special people" is NOT equal rights. It's the opposite.

I must also take issue with your contention that only government is obligated to treat people equally. If that were the case, we would not have laws against discrimination by individuals and businesses cover things like housing, public accommodation and finance. The added concept of equity has no effect on that reality. There is no trade off. They are complimentary.

Yes. "Equity" is just an expansion of the principles introduced by anti-discrimination laws. I oppose anti-discrimination laws for the same reason I oppose "equity". It's the same inversion of priorities where government abandons equal protection of the law in favor of desired social outcomes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes. "Equity" is just an expansion of the principles introduced by anti-discrimination laws. I oppose anti-discrimination laws for the same reason I oppose "equity". It's the same inversion of priorities where government abandons equal protection of the law in favor of desired social outcomes.

Of course you would be against anti discrimination laws. They cramp your style, Equal protection under the law is a desired social outcome. Leveling the playing field as they say with DEI only reverses undesirable social outcomes

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"Special rights for special people" is NOT equal rights. It's the opposite.

"Special rights for special people" is a well worn right wing trope. that is usually reserved for issues like gay rights where those invoking it really mean that those people want the same rights as others. This is a novel application and even more absurd . Equity is nothing more than accommodating people based on their unique characteristics. Equity means providing English lessons to a kid who’s family does not speak English at home. Equity to flexible work schedule to accommodate people’s family obligations. Equity is providing a reserved parking space and an accessible entrance for someone in a wheelchair. I can’t believe that you people have a problem with any of that, Then again, I can

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To me, they obviously do. But I've found that progressives often have a very different concept of "rights" than I do.

Yes we do.

 

[WEATHER53]

There is a difference between reality and the bright new tomorrow

 

[dblack]

Of course you would be against anti discrimination laws. They cramp your style ...

I suppose that's your typical snide insinuation that I'm a racist. So, you can go ahead and fuck right off.

Equal protection under the law is a desired social outcome.

 

[dblack]

Yes we do.

Which is why it's impossible to have a productive conversation with you. Liberals would do well to give up on the orwellian wordsmithing and just talk honestly about what they want.

Equal rights and equal protection means that the law applies to everyone equally. It means the government isn't allowed to discriminate. It must remain completely agnostic regarding a person's race, gender, ethnicity, wealth, sexual preference, religion, etc, etc.

Equity requires the government to take all of these into consideration, and it requires it to treat people decidedly unequally. I think you realize that, and just don't care - because it's for a good cause. But a "good cause" is entirely subjective. It depends on who is in power and who they favor. It can go wildly against you as often as not.

 

[Curried Goats]

Which is why it's impossible to have a productive conversation with you. Liberals would do well to give up on the orwellian wordsmithing and just talk honestly about what they want.

Equal rights and equal protection means that the law applies to everyone equally. It means the government isn't allowed to discriminate. It must remain completely agnostic regarding a person's race, gender, ethnicity, wealth, sexual preference, religion, etc, etc.

Equity requires the government to take all of these into consideration, and it requires it to treat people decidedly unequally. I think you realize that, and just don't care - because it's for a good cause. But a "good cause" is entirely subjective. It depends on who is in power and who they favor. It can go wildly against you as often as not.

No. It requires us to look at socio-economic prosperity and opportunity as a function of history rather than a fairytale of benevolent meritocracy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Which is why it's impossible to have a productive conversation with you. Liberals would do well to give up on the orwellian wordsmithing and just talk honestly about what they want.

Equal rights and equal protection means that the law applies to everyone equally. It means the government isn't allowed to discriminate. It must remain completely agnostic regarding a person's race, gender, ethnicity, wealth, sexual preference, religion, etc, etc.

Equity requires the government to take all of these into consideration, and it requires it to treat people decidedly unequally. I think you realize that, and just don't care - because it's for a good cause. But a "good cause" is entirely subjective. It depends on who is in power and who they favor. It can go wildly against you as often as not.

As you said, we do indeed have different views of equality. For me equity involves front ending or jump starting a persons life to give them a better shot at equality of outcome. You object to that and in my view it is neither rational or moral . It represents a Darwinian survival of the fittest -sink or swim – natural selection approach. Again, that does not preclude or negate the need to-or ability to treat people with equality and in fact helps to ensure equal treatment- government and the private sector. By elevating them to a more opportune place in society , we are confirming their worth as equal human beings in society. ​

I still maintain that there is nor conflict between equity and equality If you cant understand that, I don’t know how to help you

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I suppose that's your typical snide insinuation that I'm a racist. So, you can go ahead and fuck right off.

Take it however you like. Being opposed to anti discrimination laws makes you suspect . It's a libertarian viewpoint. Liberians ostensibly oppose racism and racist policies but they are quite will to allow others to do the dirty work .

 

[dblack]

Take it however you like. Being opposed to anti discrimination laws makes you suspect . It's a libertarian viewpoint. Liberians ostensibly oppose racism and racist policies but they are quite will to allow others to do the dirty work .

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I oppose those laws on principle because they undermine equal protection and, I believe, the practice will come back to haunt us. A government with the power to force us to referred to alt-gendered people by their preferred pronouns can force us to address its brownshirts as "sir".

 

[dblack]

​

As you said, we do indeed have different views of equality. For me equity involves front ending or jump starting a persons life to give them a better shot at equality of outcome. You object to that and in my view it is neither rational or moral . It represents a Darwinian survival of the fittest -sink or swim – natural selection approach. Again, that does not preclude or negate the need to-or ability to treat people with equality and in fact helps to ensure equal treatment- government and the private sector. By elevating them to a more opportune place in society , we are confirming their worth as equal human beings in society.​

I still maintain that there is nor conflict between equity and equality If you cant understand that, I don’t know how to help you

Help me?? LOL

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I oppose those laws on principle because they undermine equal protection and, I believe, the practice will come back to haunt us. A government with the power to force us to referred to alt-gendered people by their preferred pronouns can force us to address its brownshirts as "sir".

Oh give me a damned break!! They undermine equal protection? So you think that people who discriminate should have protection equal to the protections afforded those who would be the victims of discrimination .??

You think snowflakes who refuse to extend common courtesies and respect for people’s gender preferences should be protected. ? Actually you have little to fear. The big bad gobberment is not going to throw you in jail for being a prick and misgendering someone . But you might get a response from the person who you disrespected that you are note ready for.

 

[dblack]

Oh give me a damned break!! They undermine equal protection? So you think that people who discriminate should have protection equal to the protections afforded those who would be the victims of discrimination .??

You think snowflakes who refuse to extend common courtesies and respect for people’s gender preferences should be protected. ? Actually you have little to fear. The big bad gobberment is not going to throw you in jail for being a prick and misgendering someone . But you might get a response from the person who you disrespected that you are note ready for.

There you go again, making personal accusations.

I'm presenting an argument based on principle that's either too subtle for you to comprehend, or simply can't be acknowledged because it conflicts with your agenda. Either way, if you can't address the points I'm making, and just want to attack me personally, well I'm not interest in that kind of trolling.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

My argument either has merit or it doesn't. It doesn't lose merit because you're butt hurt over a previous argument. When I said you didn't pay me for it, that's me arguing that you and I have not come to any agreement over this property. You and the other guy you paid for it did.

Bullshit. When I specifically asked if you didn’t respect my claim to ownership because I didn’t pay you for it, you said: “Why should I?”

This tells me you don’t.

I understand laws to be made up and as I said me and my brothers can make up documents too. Legal documents have no teeth without the force to enforce them.

Irrelevant. You’re pretending you don’t know about legal documentation just to make a point.

By virtue of force.

Incorrect. Laws objectively exist whether force is applied or not.

Like someone trying to free a slave from a slaver? Again, what's maintaining your property rights is force.

Nope.

Because laws are ultimately subjective in that they are entirely made up.

Doesn’t matter; they are objectively real.

Laws by way of force. If my brothers and I were able to bring to bear superior force over the American government then your deed backed by the power of the American government would be as useful to you as toilet paper.

Irrelevant. Law does not determine ownership.

Possession is ownership, isn't it?

Not if you possess stolen property, no.

When slavers stole people didn't they become someone's property? If you can use force to maintain it as yours or force to take it and claim it as yours then it's yours.

Sure. But that was over a hundred years ago.

Again, you being butt hurt over my feelings about slavers has no bearing on whether my arguments regarding slavers have merit. Stop being a big bitch and address the arguments.

You’re the one butthurt over slavers, not me.

I just used slavery to demonstrate the validity of that argument.

You have still ignored the fact that property is no longer acquired that way.

But it used to maintain it. Try addressing that point rather than this red herring.

I have addressed it you idiot. How many times have I told you already that I don’t agree that law determines or maintains ownership?

You keep repeating the same argument over and over and I keep giving you the same response. So after addressing it and giving you a response four or five times, you accuse me of tossing red herrings. It’s ridiculous.

In the sense that governments will use force against you if you break them.

The government using force isn’t what makes a law objectively real, dumbass. It is real when the governing body signs a bill into law and it is subsequently added to the pantheon other laws.

How do you think they are objectively real?

See above.

Force does.

No, it does not. Or is that a red herring?

It kind of does.

No, it doesn’t.

If you look up the words “objecive”, “objectively” or “objectivity”, nowhere is anything mentioned about physics or even the physical or natural world.

The way the words are defined is that which is objectively real apart from opinions, biases, thoughts or the mind in general. That’s it.

Ergo, laws are objectively real apart from our biases. The moral stricture against stealing property may be subjective but the law against it is objectively real.

Physics is the study of the physical world. If it exists objectively in nature then it has to do with physics.

Yes, and?

No... again that's pertinent. If you can't force people off your property and anyone is free to come and go as they please and benefit from is natural resources, in what way does that property actually belong to you?

If I can’t force people off my property then it means I don’t have proper documention of ownership which of course means, I don’t own it.

Both.

Laws objectively exist outside the physical world.

In the context of law, sure. That's not how I meant it though.

Because of force or physical or mental impairment. I mentioned those already.

Which means it is subjective.

It's the same argument. That's me saying to you that we never came to any agreement over the property, its just worded differently. The concept is the same. I could in fact not want any payment at all. Maybe I don't even want exclusive rights to said property and I just want to be able to freely access it. No one has to pay me for that. Nature provided all this abundance readily without asking anything of me.

Again, not what you said.

My original discussion was with them. You injected yourself into it but have no concept of the law being able to be boiled down to its base property which is force.

No, it’s not.

Libertarians recognize law as force. Or at least they should. It's why many of them are for open borders. They don't believe in using force to prevent people traveling freely along public roads and spaces so I find it easier to have intellectual arguments with them on this matter. You're more like an amusing gerbil.

For the hundredth time, I do not agree that your take on force and law is correct. Further, it is not correct because you say so, nor is it correct because some libertarian agrees with you. That is what is known as a logical fallacy.

Yes. You are quite simple.

 

[Curried Goats]

Bullshit. When I specifically asked if you didn’t respect my claim to ownership because I didn’t pay you for it, you said: “Why should I?”

This tells me you don’t.

That tells me you didn't understand the argument which is why I'm clarifying it for you. Paying me would be us reaching an agreement. I don't respect your ownership because I have no reason to. We have yet to come to a mutual understanding. You are also not respecting my natural freedom to go where I please. The difference is, I'm not threatening you with violence over it.

Irrelevant. You’re pretending you don’t know about legal documentation just to make a point.

Wrong. I just explained to you what I thought a legal document is which is something societies make up and compel people to adhere to through force. If you have a counter argument, make one.

Incorrect. Laws objectively exist whether force is applied or not.

In what tangible way does a law actually exist if it's not enforced? The same way me and my brothers law exists without the ability to force anyone to follow it? The ten commandments exist in that someone wrote them down and I can read them but they have no affect on me because I don't believe in them and God is unlikely to descend from heaven to make me. Without force, laws are just requests people are free to follow or not follow.

You have still ignored the fact that property is no longer acquired that way.

It is still maintained through the force of the American legal system, you keep trying to ignore that counter point.

I have addressed it you idiot. How many times have I told you already that I don’t agree that law determines or maintains ownership?

You can say you don't agree all you like but do you have anything else as a counter argument other than "not uh"?

Also previously when I asked you what you would do if someone comes on to your land and refuses to leave or respect your claim and you said you would call your lawyer and the cops. That's an admission of reliance on the legal system and the force it can bring to bear.

You keep repeating the same argument over and over and I keep giving you the same response. So after addressing it and giving you a response four or five times, you accuse me of tossing red herrings. It’s ridiculous.

You feel free to keep make the simple argument that's easy to pick apart all you like. I'll pick it apart as long as you want to keep making it.

The government using force isn’t what makes a law objectively real, dumbass. It is real when the governing body signs a bill into law and it is subsequently added to the pantheon other laws.

I'm not contesting their reality in this regard anymore than Im contesting the reality of laws that turned people in to property, laws in the middle east that criminalize homosexuality, laws that say me and my brothers own the Earth or gods laws in the form of the ten commandments. Those things exist in that people crafted them and wrote them down, sure. This I just assume we both take for granted. Now try addressing my argument about how the only way to make people comply with these laws is through force and threats of force. No one is compelled by nature to agree to something you and some other people made up. I'm not compelled to follow gods law and you aren't compelled to follow me and my brothers law. People are compelled to follow law by force. When your counter argument is to point to the law, to me that's the same as you pointing to force.

If you look up the words “objecive”, “objectively” or “objectivity”, nowhere is anything mentioned about physics or even the physical or natural world.

The way the words are defined is that which is objectively real apart from opinions, biases, thoughts or the mind in general. That’s it.

In otherwords, the natural world. It's not my fault you can't think critically enough to reach that obvious conclusion.

Ergo, laws are objectively real apart from our biases. The moral stricture against stealing property may be subjective but the law against it is objectively real.

What do you mean apart from our biases?Laws are based on opinions and bias, Moron. How can you look up the definition, cite it and still be so stupid as to get it wrong? Fuck me you're dumb.

Laws are objectively real in that people wrote them, sure. That's not what I'm talking about. They are subjective in that they are based on opinion, bias, and come from thoughts and minds of people. Your whole skeez seems to revolve around substituting the context you'd prefer to address rather than the actual context of my arguments.

If I can’t force people off my property then it means I don’t have proper documention of ownership which of course means, I don’t own it.

Again, not the context I was referring to. What is proper documentation? Is that an objective standard in the sense that it isn't based on your opinion or the opinion of law?

Laws objectively exist outside the physical world.

And they exist subjectively as a group of peoples opinions and biases.

For the hundredth time, I do not agree that your take on force and law is correct. Further, it is not correct because you say so, nor is it correct because some libertarian agrees with you. That is what is known as a logical fallacy.

It is correct because when you can't reach mutual agreement you will reach for the force of law as you admitted earlier.

 

[CowboyTed]

'Equity' is hideous, and should not be tolerated in a free capitalistic society!!

We all should be on board for 'equality'. We know, that has not been the case in the past, but the goal starting today, is that everyone should have an equal opportunity.

'Equity' on the other hand, is a whole different animal, and is very un-American!

Not surprisingly, a Marxist will always be for 'equity', where you take and give depending on their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sound familliar? This is the world that Kamalla Harris wants for America.

"The government cannot deny rights to certain people because they are black, female, Muslim, etc.—this would be unequal treatment. A mandate to foster equity, though, would give the government power to violate these rights in order to achieve identical social results for all people. In accordance with this thinking, the authorities might be justified in giving some people more rights than others."

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy​

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."​

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris provided narration for a short animated clip that appeared on her Twitter feed Sunday. In the clip,

reason.com

The only one preaching Marxism is Trump...

Please could MAGA stop pushing there Marxist Elite Theory on us

 

[SeaMajor7]

The only one preaching Marxism is Trump...

Please could MAGA stop pushing there Marxist Elite Theory on us

GASLIGHT THEATRE BULLSHIT PROJECTION ALERT

 

[22lcidw]

The only one preaching Marxism is Trump...

Please could MAGA stop pushing there Marxist Elite Theory on us

"To the gulags, concentration camps, and extermitoriums with you"... words of Hillary of what she meant...