A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Reducing inequality by introducing more inequality - nice!
Why do these strategists come up with ideas for reducing inequality but somehow they come up with some of the worst ideas imaginable #
Its interesting that some doctors are outraged at this policy but not the fact that indigenous people on new Zeeland had been getting consistently worse medical outcomes since forever. That was apparently fine.
The solution to inequality is not more inequality.
I mean, that's what makes the most sense logically, but if the statistics actually show that it reduces inequality by implementing the system like this, I guess it's good? My initial reaction is negative, but their argument kind of makes sense: certain ethnicities receive poorer treatment earlier on, leading to worse outcomes requiring more surgery, so they should be operated on first.
Obviously the best solution would be to remove the inequality in the other parts of the system, but that's hard to do. The article says that they tested this system on a small scale first and saw that it successfully reduced inequality, hence why they're rolling it out on a larger scale. If that's true, then I would support it, so long as they were also trying to reduce the inequality already built into the system. But, I would also want to see what their criteria for determining inequality is, and what statistics they actually collected first.
What a stupid comment.
If you’re handing out Oreos to ten people and nine of them have 1 Oreo each and the final person has 200,000,000,000 Oreos there would be nothing equal in giving all ten people the same amount of food.
So yes, sometimes to equalize things out you need to practice a form of EQUITY over equality to get things truly closer to the equal you claim to desire.
And what happens when an 11th person shows up and you tell them they get less Oreos because they have the wrong skin color? Do they not deserve an equal share? Do they not deserve the same priority of medical care other skin colors receive?
We’re counting Oreos to represent inequity vs equality, not inventing straw men to be racist.
Imagine there is a line for Oreos every day and everyday you need to show up to get your Oreos. Now imagine there are certain people that outside the Oreo people control, live an hour further away and everyone starts at the same time. The people living an hour away will always be an hour later than the rest and be last in line. If the Oreos run out it will always affect the 1 hour late people because they are last. To fix this the Oreo people simply put them in line as if they arrived an hour earlier than they did because they technically were in line while travelling. The best way to fix it is to make sure that everyone has the same travel time but the Oreo distributor can't start moving people around or build new Oreo distribution places because that is outside their area. They just distribute Oreos and do their best to make it fair until the house distributors make things fair for real.
The Oreo people could have put them in line based on when they started traveling. That would have been fair.
But they didn't. They decided to let people cut the queue based on how far away they live.
Here's the problem: Some people live further away but right next to a high speed rail station. Other people live close but have to take a massive detour to cross a river.
Ok, I see there are some reading comprehension problems when it comes to metaphors. The distance I am talking about isn't literally distance. It is about how good their access to healthcare in general is. Maori is statistically proven to have worse outcomes when they are ill. They have to wait longer, gets their symptoms underestimated, get worse aftercare and ultimately die more often than other ethnicities with the exact same diagnosis. What they did was that they added a boost in priority that means that Maori that would normally wait a year for surgery now have to wait 10 months because we know that there is a bunch of shit that isn't medical that added those 2 months to begin with. The reason they chose to do it this way is because they tried it locally first and found that Maori suddenly got the same stats as everyone else when they did it.
The inequality is worse medical outcomes for indigenous people and this strategy has proven to equalize the outcomes for everyone involved. That means more equality not less. Recognizing that racism exist and implementing change based on that racism isn't itself racism.
Wouldn't that be... racism?
Interesting. I wonder how this would fly in other countries.
They did the same with covid vaccines in USA. They found that black people died disproportionately and was disproportionately infected so in order to minimize death they prioritized black people and black majority neighbourhoods because that's where each shot saved the most lies. Conservatives went mental on a very similar way. Then they decided the whole thing wasn't happening but at that point it was vital that colorblindness was maintained even if objectively more people died from it.
What's your source on that?
This BBC article states that ethnic minorities have a lower rate of vaccines: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56405199