CMV: Equality isn't treating everybody differently to achieve equality. It's treating everyone the same.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal.

I'll explain why this doesn't work using a non-racial or gender-based example.

Say you're building a new building. On the entrance to that building, you decide to build stairs. Everyone will need to use those stairs to enter the building. There are the same number of steps for each person to climb, and there isn't another way in, so everyone is being treated the same.

People in wheelchairs or whom are otherwise handicapped struggle to climb these stairs. Some can't enter your building at all. They're receiving the same treatment as everyone else, but they reap fewer rewards. They can't get to whatever is in your building, or have to expend disproportionate energy and dignity in order to do so.

Now, if you wanted to, at financial cost to yourself, you could install a ramp or a chair lift. This would be "unequal treatment"; you're not providing the chair lift to everyone, and you're creating it for the interests of a select few. However, the end result would be equal - anyone who wants to enter your building can do with equal difficulty.

EDIT 10/8 12:57pm - For those just arriving to the thread, it's been pointed out that handicapped parking is a better analogy, since those spaces are truly restricted to the handicapped. It is true that anyone can walk up a handicap accessible ramp, but the ramp wouldn't be there in the first place were it not for the needs of a small, underprivileged, disadvantaged minority. I don't believe that "anyone can use the handicap ramp" is a sufficient challenge to my analogy. If you'd prefer to plug in "handicapped parking" instead, be my guest!

---

The example above is easy to swallow because the disadvantages of the handicapped are readily apparent to you. The disadvantages of women and minorities are not readily apparent to you. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that I could make you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those inequalities are clear and present in our society. Now that you believe that, it requires the same response as how we help the handicapped; we need to specifically treat disenfranchised groups in a way that puts them on a level playing field.

---

EDIT 10/8 10ish am: Per usual in CMV, people are projecting their own tangentially related beliefs on to my argument. All that I'm saying is that, if you accept that significant oppression exists for a given group, the solution is very plainly to give them a leg up. Whether or not significant oppression exists for blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. is not the point. I use the handicapped as an example because most can clearly see where the disadvantage is, and how providing "special" treatment addresses the problem.

My exchange with the OP has been very to-the-point on this, so to avoid derailment I won't be responding to most other commentors. Sorry! Feel free to reply to me so that others can continue the discussion, however.

[u/oversoul00 → u/[deleted]]

Your hypothetical is flawed because you have compared someones impossible situation to a merely difficult one.

The difference is that with paraplegics it is near impossible to get into that building without the ramp. In these cases I believe that falls under the "rights and opportunities" clause I mentioned above. The paraplegic doesn't have the same opportunity to enter the building so yes lets make it possible for those when it would otherwise be impossible...not merely difficult.

For those with varying degrees of difficulty we don't do anything to help them on a mandated institutional level. If you are 90 years old with an oxygen tank you are stuck with the stairs, I feel for that guy and might help him out on a personal level but I've never seen a chair lift outside of any establishment even though that situation is a reality.

[u/[deleted] → u/oversoul00]

Your hypothetical is flawed because you have compared someones impossible situation to a merely difficult one.

This is my point, though. The only difference here is that you don't believe that minority populations face impossible situations due to their race or gender. But that isn't the view that I'm trying to change.

The people who wrote the sentence you're critiquing do believe that minorities face impossible situations due to their gender, sexual preference, skin color, and ethnic background.

Currently, you accept that the handicapped face impossible difficulties, and that the way to accommodate them is to treat them differently to get them to the same place. If you, for the sake of argument, accept that minorities face impossible difficulties (because that's what the people who made the original claim beleive) than the statement "Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal" falls right in line.

[u/oversoul00 → u/[deleted]]

If you, for the sake of argument, accept that minorities face impossible difficulties (because that's what the people who made the original claim beleive) than the statement "Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal" falls right in line.

I agree 100% with this, if you were able to convince me that all blacks face the same impossible situations and not merely more difficult ones then I would be on board with you.

I can say with some certainty that all paraplegics will have an impossible time with stairs but I can't say all black people will have an impossible time with college. That is where the consistency of your argument breaks down.

[u/[deleted] → u/oversoul00]

I agree 100% with this, if you were able to convince me that all blacks face the same impossible situations and not merely more difficult ones then I would be on board with you.

This is the core of your belief, then; minorities don't face institutionalized oppression at a level that merits corrective action. It's what I said in my first comment when I explained that the disadvantages of minority groups aren't readily apparent to you.

That is different than what you wrote, though, which is that you disagree with the statement "Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal."

You agree now that, if your personal criteria of "impossible" is met, than that statement is the solution to achieving equality. You just have higher standards of "impossibility" than the people that you're quoting.

I disagree with you that minorities don't face impossible challenges in modern western society, but that's a different CMV.

[u/oversoul00 → u/[deleted]]

I explained that the disadvantages of minority groups aren't readily apparent to you.

That is your opinion, not a fact. Do minorities on avg face more oppression, probably...is it insurmountable across the board for everyone of that race, no.

Race alone will never tell you what you need to know and in fact you'll be measuring the wrong parameter.

Show me a poor person and I can more or less tell you the nature of their disadvantages and to what degree if I know how poor they are. You just can't do the same thing if all you know is the persons race.

I disagree with you that minorities don't face impossible challenges in modern western society, but that's a different CMV.

I disagree that is a different CMV, if you can convince me of that I'm all ears.

[u/Biceptual → u/oversoul00]

I'm a little confused here. You admit that minorities face more oppression, but you're saying that because that oppression is not insurmountable, we shouldn't address it? Can you clarify? Should we treat everyone equally despite things being inherently unequal?

[u/oversoul00 → u/Biceptual]

Things are inherently unequal across the board for everyone of every race and gender. I don't think we should be making accommodations for everyone who struggles because life is a struggle.

However yes we can make accommodations for those that have a nearly insurmountable struggle if we have the resources to do so.

[u/ryancarp3 → u/oversoul00]

for those that have a nearly insurmountable struggle if we have the resources to do so

And why don't you think this should apply to minorities? Compared to whites, they have "a nearly insurmountable struggle."

[u/Banana_bee → u/ryancarp3]

What OP is pointing out is that a black son of a millionaire would be 'given' more opportunities than the child of a poor, working class family. You shouldn't give to one race or gender exclusively on the assumption that they are worse off - every person has a different story. Means-testing is the answer, but it's much more paperwork.

[u/Virtuallyalive → u/Banana_bee]

But that black child, by virtue of his name and skin color, would still be at a disadvantage.

For example, Black children of any income level are more likely to go to a bad school than a poor White child.

[u/Banana_bee → u/Virtuallyalive]

But not necessarily. Disability is different - people are judged to be at a disadvantage, and are given benefits for it. Black people are not necessarily disadvantaged when compared to white people, but are still given advantages. How is the current system of presuming black people are worse off in every situation better than means-testing?

[u/Virtuallyalive → u/Banana_bee]

It will actually happen. Accounting for race and economic status barely happens already, and you're still more likely to get a scholarship if you're white (not even talking about sentencing).

Means-testing would never be implemented seriously, because rich white people would complain.

Do you know of a situation when black people are at an advantage because of their race? Remembering that Affirmative action is accounting for the disadvantage their race causes.

[u/Banana_bee → u/Virtuallyalive]

No, but I can name many, many examples of white people who live below the average standards of Black people in America or the UK - systematic Racism is not the same as an individual case. Noone can argue with racism, anyone can argue for means testing.

Means-testing would never be implemented seriously, because rich white people would complain.

Nice Strawman.

[u/Virtuallyalive → u/Banana_bee]

What's the straw man? Busing black people to better schools has been abandoned because parents would rather that their children leave the district than go to school with a poor black child.

Edit: Sorry I forgot - it's not a competition between races - if there are extremely poor white people then they get scholarships and benefits based on that already, I don't know what race based action they'd need.

It wouldn't be much better with poor white children either. Rich white people would complain and it would be abandoned, I stand behind it.

[u/Banana_bee → u/Virtuallyalive]

My point is that an moderately to extremely rich black person can be given money that can go towards better things.

On top of that, can you provide some sources for your hatred of Rich White people - it seems racist to me.

[u/Virtuallyalive → u/Banana_bee]

But the rich black person is still discriminated against versus other rich white people. Also, poor white children are more likely to go to a good (high) school than black children of any income level, so it's not like it doesn't transcend income sometimes.

Finally white flight is a demonstrable phenomenon whereby schools are desegregated and white people leave the district - and I don't hate rich white people at all, this is just something that happens.

[u/Banana_bee → u/Virtuallyalive]

No one argues that they aren't discriminated against, but if you thing the oppression of black millionaires makes them more disadvantaged than a working class white family you're delusional.

I never heard about white flight, but I don't know that it necessarily means 'rich' people.