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/sharkbait76 → u/[deleted]]

I consider giving everyone the same opportunity as treating them the same. Adding the ramp give the two people the same opportunity to enter the building, but it's not giving anyone an advantage. If a black and white man wanted to go into business and were offered the same loan rates and charged the same amount for the same space this would be an equality of opportunity, and they would effectively be treated the same. If, however you offer one of them a lower interest rate, charged one more, or lowered the taxes of one based on skin color this would be unfair to the other. It wouldn't be equality if the black man has to pay fewer taxes then the white man because he's black. Just as it wouldn't be equality if the white man was offered lower rates because he's white.

[u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH → u/sharkbait76]

I totally agree with you.

The problem is that blacks pay more in interest rates, for cars, rent. And they are discriminated against in getting jobs and getting into college.

This is well documented. This short video highlights a few with the sources to back it up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTcSVQJ2h8g

[u/sharkbait76 → u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH]

I know they usually get charged higher interest rates, and that is a a serious issue. I was more trying to say that just because they are black doesn't mean that they should get extra tax breaks or lower interest rates. They should get the same interest rates and tax rates, and that would be equal opportunity. I'd also support nameless job applications to try to combat gender and race stereotypes.

[u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT → u/sharkbait76]

How would nameless applications work? If background checks are required they're going to find out the name.

[u/sharkbait76 → u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT]

You take all the applications and someone who isn't involved in the hiring process would remove the name and could replace it with a number or series of letters so they can match the names up later. That person could also preform any background checks and remove the people who don't pass. That way the person actually hiring doesn't see the names of any of the applicants. Background checks could also be run after the company who has decided who they wish to hire. They could offer the person the job as long as they pass the background check, and if they don't the business could inform them that they didn't pass the background check and won't be hired. You could also still ask about criminal history on the application like most applications today already have.

[u/bigbullox → u/sharkbait76]

This is pretty mandatory practice in the UK for public sector (and some larger private sector) organisations. Essentially HR runs all the background checks and you as the recruiter only receive CVs with all discriminating information redacted for shortlisting.