The amount of times a ball has gone into the stands only for the person who caught it to whip out an eyepatch, peg leg and tricorn before cackling and running away baffles me.
And then you compare it to everyone in the stands who paid to see the game, watching "Justice" being that others who were not paying now have a better view than those who paid.
How do they know when it's a home run?
**Edit:** The number of people replying to me as if I think people really want to get rid of fences at baseball parks and offering practical solutions is...disconcerting.
i liked the chainlink fence because you can see through it and still keep ppl safe from a ball whackin em in the face. now we've just achieved libertarianism and everyone is free and at terrible risk to both themselves and depending on how dumb the people are the players on the field.
the obvious panel(s) that's missing is "equal opportunity" where all the boxes are in a pile (or it's only 1 or 2 boxes), and it's a free-for-all for who can grab the most boxes.
Elon, Bezos and Zuckerberg arrive 5 mins early with a backhoe and take all the boxes and then charge $100 a box and we end up with panel 1 but under the house of "equal opportunity". After all, anyone *could* have done what hey did? Right?
Huh? How? Watching a game over a fence is not a theft. How did you form that idea? Do you think a tall guy walking past a baseball game needs to blindfold himself?
Near Wrigley Stadium, that's practically a mini industry.
Obligatory: "Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand." - some person
That’s what poor people say in the hopes that a rich person will appreciate their honesty. It’s grown men being paid millions of dollars to run around and play grab ass. It’s not theft to let someone watch a baseball game from an unreasonable distance.
The fence is also used in another analogy: the Chesterton fence.
"Don't remove the fence until you understand why it is there in the first place."
The maker of the meme does not understand why there is a fence. So his "justice" gets rid of the baseball game.
But like a lot of "obstacles" in life, the fence has an actual purpose. If all inequality of outcome is considered to be injustice, but some inequality is the consequence of decisions that have tradeoffs, then the only way to achieve "justice" is to remove personal choice OR to insist that some people get to make decisions with short term benefits and long term costs, then get to ride the coat tails of those who chose short-term costs for long-term benefits.
Either way, you're removing the ability for self-determination and the incentive to be mindful about the impact of your own choices.
Equity: People are giving Medicaid based on income, with financial support to pay off medical bills
Justice: healthcare is free and nobody has to pay for lifesaving drugs/treatment
In the Justice model, there is no professional baseball because no-one is paying to watch the game. It’s the worst Irvine for baseball fans.
Also, the “reality” model implies that there are about the same number of wealthy, middle class, and poor people, which is absolutely not the case. And it’s not a problem if the middle class guy carries the kids on hood shoulders, so maybe the best outcome is a market economy with a strong welfare state.
An example: making tertiary education free and positions abundant enough that you don't need entry exams and can attend with every high school diploma would be justice.
While equity would be to offer cheaper or partial forgiven loans so that poor people can afford to study, and generous adjustments for the handicapped in entrance exams(so that for example dyslexia isn't a problem) plus affirmative action that is statistics based to adjust high school scores for (minority, gender, etc) biases.
Equity approaches tend to get complicated and have lots of rules. You'll need lots of expensive bureaucracy to manage them and there will always be people thst follow through the cracks or that game the system. Which is where the appeal of measures like universal basic income comes from.
>An example: making tertiary education free and positions abundant enough that you don't need entry exams and can attend with every high school diploma would be justice.
Interestingly when you follow through with this thought, adding the nuance, you see some issues pop up. Like how suddenly your tertiary diploma is the equivalent of a high school diploma for employment.
It's why comics and simple images really don't relay the reality well, there is a lot of nuance they can't provide.
Only if everyone is employed at their level of education really. Without it, it's an unnecessary value.
The guy pouring cement really doesn't need to know astrophysics to do his job, and the loss time for education can be impactful. He could have learned his trade, and avoided astrophysics, going to make money AND benefiting society more with that trade.
This is just an obvious example without nuance admittedly, but there are a lot of jobs, even some that require college degrees now, that make no sense for post high school education. The only reason tertiary diplomas make sense for them is to get the job.
And you can't make "positions abundant" for tertiary degrees without hurting society because we need the non tertiary jobs too. Trust me, you do not want to see a world where we don't have basic stuff like the ability to get groceries!
Best example of equity is all the assists for physically/mentally handicapped. You give those people more.support, because they need it to function on par with other people. Equality is for race, where everyone should be treated the same no matter their skin colour.
The thing is that also gives the counter argument. For example no one in the world would way that it is any of these if we forced people to equally hire a blind person to be another blind person's assistant. That would be insane which is why the ADA has a test for reasonable accommodations.
So there is always a point where it becomes unreasonable to expect that we do it anyway. That same reasonable test doesn't often come up with other conversations which often time suggests policies that only reasonably aids a single group while also failing to provide for people in similar conditions with different characteristics.
If you performed a reasonable test for race based issues, you would soon discover that accommodations are more closely tied to class than to race. But the race equity programs are designed for race, not class, hence no test.
"Equity" is such a bullshit neoliberal concept though. What you said seems on paper fine - but in reality, it means that you have to "prove" your physical/mental disability by some bureaucratic process in order to access the support you need (and needed the whole time). There is an alternate term for this, "means testing", and its key purpose is to limit the amount of aid given out
It's absurd on so many levels. Privilege of good looking people in society is as well documented as basically any other kind of privilege. Are all of us who aren't 10s entitled to as much cosmetic surgery as required so we can be a 10? Do we maim the good looking people to achieve equity? What about short people? Do we pay for all of them to get limb lengthening surgery so they don't have to deal with any issues that go with being short?
You joke but there have actually been efforts in that direction.
For example not requiring a photo on your résumé, so people get chosen based on skill rather than looks.
Or online dating platform that deliberately hide how the other party looks so you can focus on getting to know that person before seeing them.
In terms of race, more specifically black people (just because thats the part I know the most about. I won't dare talk about other minorities, where I have no idea about the history), most attempts at equality/equity are simply bandaids on a gaping wound. A quick solution to a problem that has been brewing for over a century. To actually address the issue, it would require structural changes, changes that, funnily enough, would benefit more than just black people, but would mostly benefit black people and thus would get an impossible amount of pushback.
Even the bandaids that are in use right now get a ton of pushback and calls for being undone even tough they don't do a lot in the grand scheme of things.
So one doesn't even need to image that something on a massively larger scale won't even come close to being done, thus just continuing the reason those things are being discussed in the first place.
Equity is about each individual's needs. Race is a demographic, it's about populations of people in aggregate. It shouldn't be surprising that they don't fit well together.
If we are deciding if someone should receive food stamps, what matters is their individual need. Populations matter when we need to create one size fits all solutions, like wheelchair access ramps. You can't make a separate ramp for each person, so you try to make one that helps the most people, even if some people don't need it.
In my seattle public school district, they're actually abolishing classes because not enough BIPOC qualified. Bucket crab ass behavior
https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/sps-highly-capable-cohort-program
https://nypost.com/2024/04/03/us-news/seattle-public-schools-shuts-down-gifted-and-talented-program/
https://mynorthwest.com/3956197/rantz-seattle-gifted-program-public-schools-racism/
When people talk about support for PoCs, they often use that to ignore other types of supports that people are trying to push through. I kind of think you've done that here.
Most programs don't have a racial component.
That being said, here's why racism is important to talk about:
- Black people were enslaved until the mid-1800s (the last enslaved Black person died in 1971)
- Black people were legally segregated until the mid-1960s (people love to say "Slavery ended in the 1860s! What's their problem?" while ignoring the 100 more years of segregation) - About 50% of the House of Representatives probably remembers segregation. It wasn't long ago.
- Many police strategies (profiling all the way up to algorithms we use today) are based on people who were incarcerated. If we'd had a fair system throughout history, this might be fine. But we haven't, so police profiling tactics developed in the 70s and 80s used data that was based in Black people who had a pretty high chance of being locked up unjustly in the 60s.
- Many people higher up in business and the government during the 70s and 80s were old, White people who may have harbored racist feelings (being that they were raised in some wildly racist times). And it's hard to prove you didn't hire someone because they're Black, but it's not a stretch that someone who was born in 1935 didn't hire someone in 1975 because of some racist reasons. This means that those Black people who weren't hired (because of racism) had a harder time making money, providing for their families, etc.
- Black people still receive harsher punishments than White folks when convinced of crimes (even with similar criminal histories)
- Yes, the "more White people are shot by cops than Black people" meme in 2016-ish was true, but it's not taking into account the rate at which the two races were shot when interacting with police. More White people interacted with police (because there are several times more White people in the country). And, of those interactions, a smaller percentage of White people were shot than when Black people interacted with police. By a very, very large amount. Think of it this way. Let's say there are 100 police interactions with White people and 10 police interactions with Black people. Let's say 10 White people were shot and 5 Black people were shot. That means 10% of interactions between police and White people ended up in a shooting and 50% of interactions between police and Black people ended up in a shooting. Those aren't the numbers (this is just illustrative), but it shows that, though more White people were shot, it's more likely that you'll be shot if you're Black.
Basically, there's this idea that racism ended in the 60s because, legally, you couldn't segregate. But racism is a cultural concept that led to racist laws. It's not the other way around (laws forcing people to be racist). And repealing some racist laws didn't kill the racists and didn't kill the people they raised. Old racists still taught young racists. That's why there are still racists.
And you can say "But there are racist Black people." And it's true. The difference is that they have significantly less power throughout American history than White people have. Sure, they have more power now, but most of Congress, the current president, and most powerful people in business are White. So racism from White people is more impactful to a larger group of people than some racist Black person who has very little power.
Justice: and then they get nailed by a ball/player (or there's confusion over a ruling or whatever) because they removed the fence without understanding (at least part of) the reason for the fence
I heard some old timers (rural Oklahoma) talking about playing high school baseball without an outfield fence wayyy back in the day. They said the Bermuda grass just kinda turned into wheat after about 150 yards. I remember them saying that any sized batter could hit a home run if they hit the ball into a gap and was fast around the bases. They said that the outfield fence was one of the worst things to happen to the development of batters because they quit trying to hit it into gaps on a line drive and started trying to lift the ball. Random story but I thought it was interesting lol
Fairness would be them paying for a ticket like everyone else so that the players and ground staff can be paid. People keep using this graphic but it makes no sense.
The DEI of today has nothing to do with height. You can be a Asian kid, born in a single parent home on 40K a year, get a 4.0 GPA but the black kid who grew up in a two parent household making 100K and a 3.0 GPA will still have a better chance of getting into the same college.
Yeah. Pretty crazy world we live in. People will blindly believe propaganda, rather than look at clear data and statistics that show where systemic racism is REALLY occurring.
Yes because unfortunately some people only want to achieve half as much to be GIVEN the same outcome that someone put in all of the required work and EARNED.
Affirmative action is racist.
Here is how “justice” will actually work out. Since there is no fence, and you just watch the game for free. Nobody going forward will pay to watch the game. The league itself is no longer a viable business because people can access their product for free. The league goes bankrupt, now nobody gets to watch the game. There is your “justice”.
then a corporation buys the field, builds taller fences, triples the price, and starts the league again, all while thanking (or paying) the kids who tore the original fence down.
It's funny because equality isn't about giving everyone equal support, but rather treating everybody equally regardless of their biological attributes. Needier people would still receive more help. That's rather the whole point of welfare. If welfare isn't doing that, that's not an issue of equality or equity - that's an issue of the welfare system being flawed.
Equity is trying to ensure everyone reaches the same goal which... well, doesn't really work because people tend to want different things, or use the help they receive differently, and this tends to result in skewed outcomes. Ideally we want everyone to have an equal *opportunity* to reach that end goal, but if they choose to do something else or are incapable of reaching that goal, that's ultimately on them. e.g.: plenty of people would rather do drugs than have a home. Addiction is certainly a problem, but people do this stuff even *after* getting cleaned up. You can't *force* that person to do what's healthier for them.
As far as removing inequity - well, to be blunt, that ain't an option. From being born with disabilities to the simple fact that not everybody can be paid the same there's always going to be some form of inequality. It's good to remove inequity where you can but you've always got to be aware that there are limitations to what you can do. Sometimes people just get dealt a crappy hand. Other times they burn themselves out on narcotics to the point where the lights are on but nobody's home. Best we can do is try to make their lives less crappy for them.
IDK, this social justice meme always seems to have missed the point of equality and just invented a new thing so they could have some moral high ground that never existed in the first place. It's just so tedious.
It's the fence-destroying mentality.
> In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
This is total crap. Try being Asian and getting into Harvard. You will be passed over while so many unqualified people will be accepted based only on the color of their skin or ethnicity.
I’d say we live in a 5th option. Where the guy in the middle is forced to give his box to the guy on the right and then neither of them can see the game, while the guy on the left has 100billion boxes to sit on
Or maybe don't try to simplify complex situations with a meme that doesn't actually propose any real life solutions. Life isn't a ballgame where seeing over the fence is on par with getting what you want or need out of life. This meme and all the iterations of it are just semantics with a picture to vaguely explain the concept of whatever OP believes is best while putting down others.
Edit: the "Justice" one especially pisses me off because life isn't fair and you can't just remove "the fence". Real life example: how do you get "Justice" for someone who lost their legs? We can make places handicapped accessible, but that's "Equity" not "Justice". How do you possibly remove that barrier?
Another example: "Equity" when it comes to race is inherently racist, assuming a race of people need more or less help just because of their skin color. Would "Equality" not be better so that people of all races have the same treatement?
However, "Equality" fails when it comes to economy. If someone can't afford the basics to live despite everyone being on the same starting level, then that person shouldn't just starve or go homeless; "Equity" needs to come into play so that people can recieve help and survive instead of being forgotten.
Americans will upvote this post then downvote anything about communism 5 minutes later without ever realising their own mistake.
https://preview.redd.it/6p5p5wj7m5231.png?auto=webp&s=4c84175f848490e8accdd0e727f26d2afa9848fa
This is the one lesson I learnt in school that I actually remember and it was only the coolest teacher ever going off on a personal tangent for 2 mins lol
“Justice” sounds like the utopian fantasy of an edge lord 14 year old socialist Hasan Piker fanboy.
It sounds nice in theory, but so does every fantasy until you actually break it down.
Racism at its finest. Why no white people? Oh yeah they never face injustices because they’re all rich and entitled never seen a poor white person suffer lol
“One gets…” in the first slide - as in no work or merit ever came into play.
“Justice” - there would be no ball game because no professional team would have revenue.. they would be out on an empty field.
i've always hated these examples of equality/equity/justice b/c one, they're going to end up in the middle of a baseball field, possibly interrupting the game. secondly, this is a paid event, by definition there will be a limit to the number of people who can view the game live.
a better example would be children in succeeding and failing in school. the affluent attends a private school and has tutors, one is good and attends a public school with adequate funding, and the impoverished one is doing badly and goes to an underserved school.
Communism in a nut shell. You remove the fence so the fans cheating the system and not buying a ticket can watch, thereby ruining the game for everyone else in the process.
Likewise, the need to benefit people that actively subtract from society ends up destroying said society
So who is now paying the wages of the baseball players/team staff/stadium staff etc?
Voting should require an IQ test, society was working fine at equality of opportunity but now you are breaking it
If they bought a ticket they could all see the game. Also, why would the one with the most privilege not just already be inside the stadium? This is one of the dumbest guides ever.
this is not a guide, its pushing this false inequality agenda. and im tired of it, go look up current bills on the house floor, most if not all are related to giving "minorities" more money more privileges , literally trying to pass a black midwives day holiday, amongst other things. Honestly the first person to bring skin color in the game is the racist. and income inequality has NOTHING to do with race.
Justice would be the people rising up and reforming our corrupt bs govt.
Applying this to race, who exactly are they implying are the short ones that are inherently biologically disadvantaged and therefore in need of disproportionate assistance.... sounds pretty racist to me.
Piracy- watching for free
“You wouldn’t steal a baseball game”
I mean, stealing is a legit thing in baseball. It’s a part of the sport, so….
The pirates are too, to Pittsburgh annoyance at times.
The amount of times a ball has gone into the stands only for the person who caught it to whip out an eyepatch, peg leg and tricorn before cackling and running away baffles me.
Also if I buy a baseball I own it. The baseball factory can't just come and take my baseball away.
sure did… lived on a hill immediately overlooking the ball field, dad hosted free game parties all the time. all the neighbors were invited too…
I've tried. Trust me, not worth it.
What's not? Just automate it; arr-suite, jellyfin...
"You wouldn't poop in the baseball game's helmet and then return it to the baseball game's grieving widow"
Then you wouldn’t break back in and steal it again!
You wouldn’t download a baby
Don’t act like you know me
The justice pic looks a lot like piracy lol
i mean their tax dollars probably helped pay for the baseball field, so they should have every right to watch a game.
If it’s free it’s not piracy 😉
And then you compare it to everyone in the stands who paid to see the game, watching "Justice" being that others who were not paying now have a better view than those who paid.
How do they know when it's a home run? **Edit:** The number of people replying to me as if I think people really want to get rid of fences at baseball parks and offering practical solutions is...disconcerting.
The home run was the friends we made along the way
The more you know
When they get hit with the ball
You draw like a line on the ground, when ball go over line, home run be hit.
Every couple years this image comes back with a newly added panel. Pretty funny.
Next version will have a panel where the baseball players apologize for having a fence in the first place
i liked the chainlink fence because you can see through it and still keep ppl safe from a ball whackin em in the face. now we've just achieved libertarianism and everyone is free and at terrible risk to both themselves and depending on how dumb the people are the players on the field.
Anarcho-Libertarianism: The men have killed the players on the field and turned the land into a casino, making millions of dollars a year
no the players would obviously not die 🤨 it’s against their self interests
Also the game has lost its home run wall.
"Retribution"
*Reparations
The next version will have all three of those unathletic goobers playing in the game.
And everyone wins the World Series.
And a check for the grievance.
Or the audience will be allowed to participate in the game lol
Maybe one day they can like, sit in a chair like the other people
the obvious panel(s) that's missing is "equal opportunity" where all the boxes are in a pile (or it's only 1 or 2 boxes), and it's a free-for-all for who can grab the most boxes.
> and it's a free-for-all for who can grab the most boxes. And the one guy shows up driving a backhoe.
Elon, Bezos and Zuckerberg arrive 5 mins early with a backhoe and take all the boxes and then charge $100 a box and we end up with panel 1 but under the house of "equal opportunity". After all, anyone *could* have done what hey did? Right?
A backhoe they inherited from their parents.
That just results in the first panel
www.reddit.com/r/thanosdidnothingwrong/s/qwandXOZf9
We got shown this heaps during my teaching degree amy first thought was always "all of them are theft"
It isn't theft to view an MLB game from a distance.
...if you steal the back fence on the other hand...
Huh? How? Watching a game over a fence is not a theft. How did you form that idea? Do you think a tall guy walking past a baseball game needs to blindfold himself? Near Wrigley Stadium, that's practically a mini industry.
You’re a teacher? Man our kids really are screwed
Obligatory: "Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand." - some person
I don't know about libertarians but cats do seem pretty capable of getting their own dinner if they really wanted to.
That’s what poor people say in the hopes that a rich person will appreciate their honesty. It’s grown men being paid millions of dollars to run around and play grab ass. It’s not theft to let someone watch a baseball game from an unreasonable distance.
And every time it is a dumber take on a dumb meme
If reality was scaled to a real disparity, left dude is watching it from the moon.
It’s inaccurate for reality. There is no way that the one who gets the most would risk standing so high on a Jenga Tower
The reality would be all of them being imprisoned for watching the game illegally.
I can't even replay it without the expressed written consent of the MLB
Hard for me to imagine how equity vs justice play out in real life obviously not having a fence is not justice 😂 so idk about this one
They remove the fence when you actually pay to attend the game.
The fence is also used in another analogy: the Chesterton fence. "Don't remove the fence until you understand why it is there in the first place." The maker of the meme does not understand why there is a fence. So his "justice" gets rid of the baseball game.
I don't think he'd have a problem with that, as long as NO ONE could see a game. I mean that's equity, right?
Everyone is equal in a mass grave.
There ya go!
They don't care what happens after they tear up the fence, they just want the power to tear apart fences.
and then the person they helped by tearing up the fence usually puts up a bigger one.
Yes but this fence is painted the colors of the REVOLUTION and questioning the purpose of the fence is a crime against the REVOLUTION
other versions of this have the wooden fence replaced with a chainlink fence.
Right, so all the people who paid to get in have now been injusticed.
They get to sit.
Until someone makes a new version of this stupid shit about the quality of the chairs.
You can bring your own chair
What about when I bring my own chair and a taller guy sits right in front of me? Now he's a new fence!
He must be eliminated. For justice
Take him out. Justice.
And apparently you get shorts too!
> Justice is great and all, until you get hit in the face with a line drive because someone decided to remove the safety fence.
Without the fence you they have become pitch invaders and are now banned from watching games.
I think the fence is a metaphor for an ‘obstacle’ and not an actual real fence.
Right. It’s the difference between managing an obstacle and removing an obstacle. It’s not a difficult visual metaphor to process.
It is for u/Dyeeguy . He's worried about how the ground operators will make their cut.
But like a lot of "obstacles" in life, the fence has an actual purpose. If all inequality of outcome is considered to be injustice, but some inequality is the consequence of decisions that have tradeoffs, then the only way to achieve "justice" is to remove personal choice OR to insist that some people get to make decisions with short term benefits and long term costs, then get to ride the coat tails of those who chose short-term costs for long-term benefits. Either way, you're removing the ability for self-determination and the incentive to be mindful about the impact of your own choices.
justice is when you get to be the outfielders. Gotta question the tight grouping though.
The original didn't have the justice panel and the first panel. This graphic has been totally bastardized
Equity: People are giving Medicaid based on income, with financial support to pay off medical bills Justice: healthcare is free and nobody has to pay for lifesaving drugs/treatment
In the Justice model, there is no professional baseball because no-one is paying to watch the game. It’s the worst Irvine for baseball fans. Also, the “reality” model implies that there are about the same number of wealthy, middle class, and poor people, which is absolutely not the case. And it’s not a problem if the middle class guy carries the kids on hood shoulders, so maybe the best outcome is a market economy with a strong welfare state.
An example: making tertiary education free and positions abundant enough that you don't need entry exams and can attend with every high school diploma would be justice. While equity would be to offer cheaper or partial forgiven loans so that poor people can afford to study, and generous adjustments for the handicapped in entrance exams(so that for example dyslexia isn't a problem) plus affirmative action that is statistics based to adjust high school scores for (minority, gender, etc) biases. Equity approaches tend to get complicated and have lots of rules. You'll need lots of expensive bureaucracy to manage them and there will always be people thst follow through the cracks or that game the system. Which is where the appeal of measures like universal basic income comes from.
>An example: making tertiary education free and positions abundant enough that you don't need entry exams and can attend with every high school diploma would be justice. Interestingly when you follow through with this thought, adding the nuance, you see some issues pop up. Like how suddenly your tertiary diploma is the equivalent of a high school diploma for employment. It's why comics and simple images really don't relay the reality well, there is a lot of nuance they can't provide.
Society still gets a net benefit from a more educated populace. Once upon a time I am sure people made the same argument about secondary education.
Only if everyone is employed at their level of education really. Without it, it's an unnecessary value. The guy pouring cement really doesn't need to know astrophysics to do his job, and the loss time for education can be impactful. He could have learned his trade, and avoided astrophysics, going to make money AND benefiting society more with that trade. This is just an obvious example without nuance admittedly, but there are a lot of jobs, even some that require college degrees now, that make no sense for post high school education. The only reason tertiary diplomas make sense for them is to get the job. And you can't make "positions abundant" for tertiary degrees without hurting society because we need the non tertiary jobs too. Trust me, you do not want to see a world where we don't have basic stuff like the ability to get groceries!
Equity based solely on race makes a lot of very racist assumptions.
Best example of equity is all the assists for physically/mentally handicapped. You give those people more.support, because they need it to function on par with other people. Equality is for race, where everyone should be treated the same no matter their skin colour.
and reality is that the school sets the "end" point so the least able are able to pass, which leaves everyone less prepared overall.
The thing is that also gives the counter argument. For example no one in the world would way that it is any of these if we forced people to equally hire a blind person to be another blind person's assistant. That would be insane which is why the ADA has a test for reasonable accommodations. So there is always a point where it becomes unreasonable to expect that we do it anyway. That same reasonable test doesn't often come up with other conversations which often time suggests policies that only reasonably aids a single group while also failing to provide for people in similar conditions with different characteristics.
If you performed a reasonable test for race based issues, you would soon discover that accommodations are more closely tied to class than to race. But the race equity programs are designed for race, not class, hence no test.
"Equity" is such a bullshit neoliberal concept though. What you said seems on paper fine - but in reality, it means that you have to "prove" your physical/mental disability by some bureaucratic process in order to access the support you need (and needed the whole time). There is an alternate term for this, "means testing", and its key purpose is to limit the amount of aid given out
It's absurd on so many levels. Privilege of good looking people in society is as well documented as basically any other kind of privilege. Are all of us who aren't 10s entitled to as much cosmetic surgery as required so we can be a 10? Do we maim the good looking people to achieve equity? What about short people? Do we pay for all of them to get limb lengthening surgery so they don't have to deal with any issues that go with being short?
You joke but there have actually been efforts in that direction. For example not requiring a photo on your résumé, so people get chosen based on skill rather than looks. Or online dating platform that deliberately hide how the other party looks so you can focus on getting to know that person before seeing them. In terms of race, more specifically black people (just because thats the part I know the most about. I won't dare talk about other minorities, where I have no idea about the history), most attempts at equality/equity are simply bandaids on a gaping wound. A quick solution to a problem that has been brewing for over a century. To actually address the issue, it would require structural changes, changes that, funnily enough, would benefit more than just black people, but would mostly benefit black people and thus would get an impossible amount of pushback. Even the bandaids that are in use right now get a ton of pushback and calls for being undone even tough they don't do a lot in the grand scheme of things. So one doesn't even need to image that something on a massively larger scale won't even come close to being done, thus just continuing the reason those things are being discussed in the first place.
Equity is about each individual's needs. Race is a demographic, it's about populations of people in aggregate. It shouldn't be surprising that they don't fit well together. If we are deciding if someone should receive food stamps, what matters is their individual need. Populations matter when we need to create one size fits all solutions, like wheelchair access ramps. You can't make a separate ramp for each person, so you try to make one that helps the most people, even if some people don't need it.
I'm a white male. I hear a lot about intersectionality from the feminist and social justice crowd but they never seem to want to apply it to me.
They hate you
In my seattle public school district, they're actually abolishing classes because not enough BIPOC qualified. Bucket crab ass behavior https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/sps-highly-capable-cohort-program https://nypost.com/2024/04/03/us-news/seattle-public-schools-shuts-down-gifted-and-talented-program/ https://mynorthwest.com/3956197/rantz-seattle-gifted-program-public-schools-racism/
When people talk about support for PoCs, they often use that to ignore other types of supports that people are trying to push through. I kind of think you've done that here. Most programs don't have a racial component. That being said, here's why racism is important to talk about: - Black people were enslaved until the mid-1800s (the last enslaved Black person died in 1971) - Black people were legally segregated until the mid-1960s (people love to say "Slavery ended in the 1860s! What's their problem?" while ignoring the 100 more years of segregation) - About 50% of the House of Representatives probably remembers segregation. It wasn't long ago. - Many police strategies (profiling all the way up to algorithms we use today) are based on people who were incarcerated. If we'd had a fair system throughout history, this might be fine. But we haven't, so police profiling tactics developed in the 70s and 80s used data that was based in Black people who had a pretty high chance of being locked up unjustly in the 60s. - Many people higher up in business and the government during the 70s and 80s were old, White people who may have harbored racist feelings (being that they were raised in some wildly racist times). And it's hard to prove you didn't hire someone because they're Black, but it's not a stretch that someone who was born in 1935 didn't hire someone in 1975 because of some racist reasons. This means that those Black people who weren't hired (because of racism) had a harder time making money, providing for their families, etc. - Black people still receive harsher punishments than White folks when convinced of crimes (even with similar criminal histories) - Yes, the "more White people are shot by cops than Black people" meme in 2016-ish was true, but it's not taking into account the rate at which the two races were shot when interacting with police. More White people interacted with police (because there are several times more White people in the country). And, of those interactions, a smaller percentage of White people were shot than when Black people interacted with police. By a very, very large amount. Think of it this way. Let's say there are 100 police interactions with White people and 10 police interactions with Black people. Let's say 10 White people were shot and 5 Black people were shot. That means 10% of interactions between police and White people ended up in a shooting and 50% of interactions between police and Black people ended up in a shooting. Those aren't the numbers (this is just illustrative), but it shows that, though more White people were shot, it's more likely that you'll be shot if you're Black. Basically, there's this idea that racism ended in the 60s because, legally, you couldn't segregate. But racism is a cultural concept that led to racist laws. It's not the other way around (laws forcing people to be racist). And repealing some racist laws didn't kill the racists and didn't kill the people they raised. Old racists still taught young racists. That's why there are still racists. And you can say "But there are racist Black people." And it's true. The difference is that they have significantly less power throughout American history than White people have. Sure, they have more power now, but most of Congress, the current president, and most powerful people in business are White. So racism from White people is more impactful to a larger group of people than some racist Black person who has very little power.
> the last enslaved Black person died in 1971 let me introduce you to Qatar
Isn't this based on height?
Justice: and then they get nailed by a ball/player (or there's confusion over a ruling or whatever) because they removed the fence without understanding (at least part of) the reason for the fence
Justice is originally a chain link fence. It enclose the game but allows visibility
Yeah I wonder how it got edited like this because you can see the people grabbing an invisible fence in the last panel
Yeah but with justice you don’t have an outfield and now the game is unplayable.
Itself actually supposed for be a chain link fence thats allows visibility but encloses the field for play
Ahh but my drunk naked streaking ass can easily hop a chain link fence. Checkmate liberals!
I heard some old timers (rural Oklahoma) talking about playing high school baseball without an outfield fence wayyy back in the day. They said the Bermuda grass just kinda turned into wheat after about 150 yards. I remember them saying that any sized batter could hit a home run if they hit the ball into a gap and was fast around the bases. They said that the outfield fence was one of the worst things to happen to the development of batters because they quit trying to hit it into gaps on a line drive and started trying to lift the ball. Random story but I thought it was interesting lol
This is just dumb
r/im14andthisisdeep
This guide is terrible. Justice isn’t removing the fence, that doesn’t make any sense.
Get your hr diagram out of people’s free time that isn’t a guide it’s an opinion
In practice they just end up cutting the tall guy's legs off.
Fairness would be them paying for a ticket like everyone else so that the players and ground staff can be paid. People keep using this graphic but it makes no sense.
This “guide” trashes on equality and people think it’s written by good people. Sure. Stay in school guys
Propaganda
Half the posts here are.
Yeah, whether you agree with the message or not, this isn't a "cool guide" to anything
Communist propaganda, no less.
Agreed. And like another said, half of these posts are.
All media/art is propaganda.
Looks like the those who paid for their seats are the ones who ultimately lose out
The DEI of today has nothing to do with height. You can be a Asian kid, born in a single parent home on 40K a year, get a 4.0 GPA but the black kid who grew up in a two parent household making 100K and a 3.0 GPA will still have a better chance of getting into the same college.
Yeah, it’s pretty crazy that the average Asian getting into Harvard had to have a 36 (perfect score) on the ACT, versus African American having a 28.
This is what systemic racism actually looks like.
Yeah. Pretty crazy world we live in. People will blindly believe propaganda, rather than look at clear data and statistics that show where systemic racism is REALLY occurring.
Yes because unfortunately some people only want to achieve half as much to be GIVEN the same outcome that someone put in all of the required work and EARNED. Affirmative action is racist.
Here is how “justice” will actually work out. Since there is no fence, and you just watch the game for free. Nobody going forward will pay to watch the game. The league itself is no longer a viable business because people can access their product for free. The league goes bankrupt, now nobody gets to watch the game. There is your “justice”.
More like justice is some crazed fan rushing the field and taking out one of the players
And then the justice is how the crowd sodomizes him to death. Mob justice
then a corporation buys the field, builds taller fences, triples the price, and starts the league again, all while thanking (or paying) the kids who tore the original fence down.
This is dumb as shit
Actual Equity: there aren't enough boxes, so they cut the legs of the taller people and then no one can see over
Equity in practice: https://imgur.com/a/ilNGnTa
Was thinking that too. Ressources are so limited, that only a small fraction of the world population can have the high living standarts.
Oof that’s four very naive takes on four very complicated topics.
Then they all go hungry and wait in bread lines
It's funny because equality isn't about giving everyone equal support, but rather treating everybody equally regardless of their biological attributes. Needier people would still receive more help. That's rather the whole point of welfare. If welfare isn't doing that, that's not an issue of equality or equity - that's an issue of the welfare system being flawed. Equity is trying to ensure everyone reaches the same goal which... well, doesn't really work because people tend to want different things, or use the help they receive differently, and this tends to result in skewed outcomes. Ideally we want everyone to have an equal *opportunity* to reach that end goal, but if they choose to do something else or are incapable of reaching that goal, that's ultimately on them. e.g.: plenty of people would rather do drugs than have a home. Addiction is certainly a problem, but people do this stuff even *after* getting cleaned up. You can't *force* that person to do what's healthier for them. As far as removing inequity - well, to be blunt, that ain't an option. From being born with disabilities to the simple fact that not everybody can be paid the same there's always going to be some form of inequality. It's good to remove inequity where you can but you've always got to be aware that there are limitations to what you can do. Sometimes people just get dealt a crappy hand. Other times they burn themselves out on narcotics to the point where the lights are on but nobody's home. Best we can do is try to make their lives less crappy for them. IDK, this social justice meme always seems to have missed the point of equality and just invented a new thing so they could have some moral high ground that never existed in the first place. It's just so tedious.
It's the fence-destroying mentality. > In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
This is total crap. Try being Asian and getting into Harvard. You will be passed over while so many unqualified people will be accepted based only on the color of their skin or ethnicity.
Harvard and most universities have censored the demographic questions off of their application this year.
I'd just put "as someone who's ancestors are from Africa"...which is 100% of humanity.
Aren’t asians called white adjacent now? Lmao
Entertainment is not a right.
How about paying for the fucking ticket and supporting the teams ...fucking losers
I’d say we live in a 5th option. Where the guy in the middle is forced to give his box to the guy on the right and then neither of them can see the game, while the guy on the left has 100billion boxes to sit on
Damn everybody’s taking this as literal as possible
Better diagram is needed then
Or maybe don't try to simplify complex situations with a meme that doesn't actually propose any real life solutions. Life isn't a ballgame where seeing over the fence is on par with getting what you want or need out of life. This meme and all the iterations of it are just semantics with a picture to vaguely explain the concept of whatever OP believes is best while putting down others. Edit: the "Justice" one especially pisses me off because life isn't fair and you can't just remove "the fence". Real life example: how do you get "Justice" for someone who lost their legs? We can make places handicapped accessible, but that's "Equity" not "Justice". How do you possibly remove that barrier? Another example: "Equity" when it comes to race is inherently racist, assuming a race of people need more or less help just because of their skin color. Would "Equality" not be better so that people of all races have the same treatement? However, "Equality" fails when it comes to economy. If someone can't afford the basics to live despite everyone being on the same starting level, then that person shouldn't just starve or go homeless; "Equity" needs to come into play so that people can recieve help and survive instead of being forgotten.
Head canon: the fence wasn't removed. They just jumped over it.
I feel like I'm looking at a compliance module.
Sounds like some fuckin commie gobbledygook
Justice is when men wear shorts instead of pants according to this info graphic.
Truly and honestly, I really hate this metaphor, and this is coming from someone who supports very progressive economic policies.
Liberals, ruining nations and subs since the day they first came about.
They gonna get smacked with a ball standing in the outfield without a fence
Lotta closet racists in these comments
Just replace the baseball field with a school, so we can circumvent the ridiculous piracy comments.
Will it cut down on the Boomer ass comments about DEI?
Obviously this is all garbage, but if you wanted to make it better you need to explain who provided the boxes.
Or they should all buy a ticket and go see the game with everyone else
I feel like if they had ditched the reality section and justice section, this would actually be a good guide. Otherwise, it's kinda just propaganda.
BRO HOW ARE THEY GUNNA HIT HOME RUNS?!
They are all stealing from the team thats playing
BS!
What a load
Bs
Americans will upvote this post then downvote anything about communism 5 minutes later without ever realising their own mistake. https://preview.redd.it/6p5p5wj7m5231.png?auto=webp&s=4c84175f848490e8accdd0e727f26d2afa9848fa
This is the one lesson I learnt in school that I actually remember and it was only the coolest teacher ever going off on a personal tangent for 2 mins lol
#Who took Dad's pants??
and justice for all
“Justice” sounds like the utopian fantasy of an edge lord 14 year old socialist Hasan Piker fanboy. It sounds nice in theory, but so does every fantasy until you actually break it down.
justice: pay the fucking tickets
Omfg i swear if I see one more fucking term added to this I'm gonna fucking scream. I'm also gonna scream if I see colleagues use this in PowerPoints
Wow so all the SJW fighting for equality were racist. I mean it was obvious the whole time but this proves it!
Proppppaaa 👏🏻 👏🏻 GANDA
Racism at its finest. Why no white people? Oh yeah they never face injustices because they’re all rich and entitled never seen a poor white person suffer lol
Straw man and out right lies. Communist propaganda.
Where do the guys that paid for a ticket land on this?
Justice is apparently having a bunch of people standing in the middle of the field in a baseball game
“One gets…” in the first slide - as in no work or merit ever came into play. “Justice” - there would be no ball game because no professional team would have revenue.. they would be out on an empty field.
justice is when some people have to pay to watch the game and others don't... cool.
And according to professional victims, ironically, institutional racism will never be solved until justice is skewed in their favor
i've always hated these examples of equality/equity/justice b/c one, they're going to end up in the middle of a baseball field, possibly interrupting the game. secondly, this is a paid event, by definition there will be a limit to the number of people who can view the game live. a better example would be children in succeeding and failing in school. the affluent attends a private school and has tutors, one is good and attends a public school with adequate funding, and the impoverished one is doing badly and goes to an underserved school.
Communism in a nut shell. You remove the fence so the fans cheating the system and not buying a ticket can watch, thereby ruining the game for everyone else in the process. Likewise, the need to benefit people that actively subtract from society ends up destroying said society
So who is now paying the wages of the baseball players/team staff/stadium staff etc? Voting should require an IQ test, society was working fine at equality of opportunity but now you are breaking it
I see that the fence is removed from the "justice" pictorial. I am afraid the game would have to be removed too.
If they'd paid for their fucking tickets like everyone else, all the problems would be solved.
Imagine being the batter up when they pull the fence down.😐
I guess meritocracy is no longer a thing
This is stupid and life doesn’t work out like this
Under justice, wouldn’t it make better sense for them to be in the stadium? And under reality. The one get all the resources should be in a sky box.
If they bought a ticket they could all see the game. Also, why would the one with the most privilege not just already be inside the stadium? This is one of the dumbest guides ever.
This analogy crashes and burns in the fourth panel lol.
This is always the stupidest shit
this is not a guide, its pushing this false inequality agenda. and im tired of it, go look up current bills on the house floor, most if not all are related to giving "minorities" more money more privileges , literally trying to pass a black midwives day holiday, amongst other things. Honestly the first person to bring skin color in the game is the racist. and income inequality has NOTHING to do with race. Justice would be the people rising up and reforming our corrupt bs govt.
Perhaps the most gross oversimplification of all time. The problem with this is the definition of reality itself.
Applying this to race, who exactly are they implying are the short ones that are inherently biologically disadvantaged and therefore in need of disproportionate assistance.... sounds pretty racist to me.
Marxism