this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
598 points (100.0% liked)
Murdered by Words
32 readers
1 users here now
Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.
The following things are not grounds for murder:
- Personal appearance ("You're fat", "You're ugly")
- Posts with little-to-no context
- Posts based on a grammar/spelling error
- Dick jokes, "Yo mama", "No, you" type responses and other low effort insults
- "Your values are bad" without any logcal or factual ways of showing that they are wrong ("I believe in capitalism" - "Well, then you must be evil" or "Fuck you you ignorant asshole")
Rules:
- Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
- Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
- No bigotry of any kind.
- Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
- If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
- Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why do you ask?
It's been my experience that people who value equality don't care about the nitty gritty of what it means, because it's a value. An ideal. And if you hold equality as an ideal, that means it's always something to work towards. Inqualities are triaged, but they're all something that we should overcome in the name of fairness and egalitarianism.
Someone always brings up "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" when they want to disrupt and derail people who value equality by getting them to wrestle in the mud about how much equality is too much. And, to be frank, it feels like you're trying to throw the "equality of outcome" wrench into the gears here, and I don't believe that is ever done in good faith.
What's the problem with equality of outcome? What does it even mean? Where does the objection come from?
Simply put, it comes from resentment. It comes from the idea that "I worked hard, so I deserve a better quality of life than someone I choose to believe worked less hard!" And that's just a long way of saying "I believe I am more deserving than someone else".
But why? Often this comes from people who already have a certain level of comfort in life believing that they hold more right to that comfort, safety, and happiness than someone else. Too often in this sphere, it comes from people who liked tech and did well in technical subjects in school believing that that entitles them to a higher quality of life than someone who wasn't interested in or had no special aptitude for those subjects. But shouldn't one of the freedoms that comes from equality being the freedom to find joy in what you want? Why should I be rewarded more lucrative Ly than you for enjoying something different?
And if I don't enjoy it, should it really make sense for me to suffer at something I don't enjoy for the sake of wealth? Maybe the equality of outcome is really the equal ability to experience joy, and comfort, and security no matter what we enjoy and how we invest our time? If the world has the resources to allow it, then why should one person be punished for chasing their joy while another is rewarded?
The answer usually boils down to "I made better decisions, so I should be rewarded!" which is just another way of saying "people who make mistakes should be punished!"
And that seems like bullshit. What kind of world is that? Where people aren't safe to make mistakes (and this is ignoring the idea that someone's passion can be considered a mistake)? Where they're punished for trying something different? Or for not jumping on a trend? Where safety and comfort are used as crudgles to force people to do things that make them miserable?
Because that's really what "what do you mean by equality?" is really saying.
you do have a point in the sense that if we live in a utopia, I think there is good reason to think that it shouldn't matter what choices people make, they all get the same 'reward'/financial outcome/etc.
You said:
Yes okay, but what if there are limited resources? Or a world that needs improvement? Isn't it then better to incentivize people to work hard to make our world of limited resources a world of abundance? If yes, then it means to give those a higher reward at the expense of those who made "other choices".
Are we now living in a world of limited resources / that needs improvement? If yes, then it would probably be justified to take from those who made "other choices"
Who decides what deserves more wealth and respect? People don’t make rational decisions in this regard. Most of the time the people with more power will simply decide that their area of expertise deserves the most resources and respect.
true but generally speaking one could say he who makes abundance for us all, deserves more.