Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The "equity" from "Private Equity (has consumed America by Sam "Wendover Productions")? or which one? If you mean equality (also known as equity): do you mean how insisting on equality of e.g. external conditions (taxes, school curricula, etc.) is ableist or something?
Equality and equity are different, as it has been defined by various movements in the US. This definition has been adopted in mainstream usage for a while now. I'm surprised by your question, I feel this would be common knowledge to most people in western societies by this point. But I'm happy to answer if you are asking in good faith.
Equality is sort of the color-blind approach to treating people equally, with little to no regard for their race. It looks at their individual circumstances, not making broad assumptions based on their racial background. For the record, color blind doesn't mean we dont seek to identify and correct racial issues, it just means we typically do so without creating race specific policies and instead apply the policies to everyone. My deep appreciation of equality as a fundamental principal is why I oppose equity and the strategic equivocation with which it is used.
Equity is contrasted to that by putting race front and center, and often above all else when making decisions on resource allocation. It's how we get policies that broadly focus on racial groups. It's not always advertised but equity is opposed to equality, so that specific races can be selected to receive benefits, or excluded from receiving benefits.
Speaking to the movement more broadly, In order to justify equity, anything that can be measured through the lens of race will be(deconstruction) and any difference in outcome will be flagged as racism, but only if white people are on the advantagous side.
Why is this bad? Don't POCs need help?
They often do, but our racial based policies to correct them are often counterproductive, discriminatory, or even harmful. Our need based programs already disproportionately benefit them, and will continue to do so more if we bolster them. Here's some quick examples of equitable efforts, just to give you an idea of how it manifests. These are extremely condensed, but I could pull links later if you want them.