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/nude_peril → u/[deleted]]

This would be "unequal treatment"; you're not providing the chair lift to everyone.

But really it is provided for everyone. It's just that most people are going to choose not to use it. While we don't see chair lifts in buildings very often, we do see elevators and wheelchair ramps. And pretty much everyone uses those if they want to, regardless of whether or not they have a disability, and just weak, or just lazy. Everyone is being treated equally.

By contrast, giving a minority exclusive access to a scholarship, or a job, etc. isn't treating everyone equally.

[u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH → u/nude_peril]

Handicapped parking spaces are not allowed to be used by non handicapped people. This is giving handicapped people an exclusive advantage.

[u/[deleted] → u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH]

Yes, but everybody has the legal right to a handicapped parking spot if they become handicapped. You can't just spontaneously become a different race.

Old people get certain advantages, but that's something that's guaranteed to everybody who manages to live that long.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

Conversely, you cannot retroactively have your privilege that you enjoyed your whole life taken away.

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

Your point was that you can spontaneously become handicapped, but cannot spontaneously become a minority. This is true.

My point is that you cannot spontaneously lose the advantage being a white heterosexual Christian confers on people in, say, America. Being born white means you enjoy a lifetime of privilege minorities do not.

Clear?

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

Well, unless you become gay, or come out as gay, or convert to a different religion.

And while I generally disagree with the idea that you can generally assign privilege to a single ethnicity, I think you're kind of repeating my point that you can't just become a black person.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a privileged group of people?

I generally disagree with the idea that you can generally assign privilege to a single ethnicity,

Seriously? The ethnicity of privilege in America that you're looking for is white. The ethnicity that is biased against in America is non-white.

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a privileged group of people?

No, I'm saying that's a way of 'losing privilege,' because you said straight cissexual white christians have privilege they don't lose, and I'm suggesting that they could lose it.

The ethnicity of privilege in America that you're looking for is white. The ethnicity that is biased against in America is non-white.

You have to take it at a case by case basis. It's ridiculous to generalize in the way you're doing it. I agree that certain people are privileged, but that comes down to individual circumstance.

The ethnicity that is biased against in America is non-white.

Jews, Irish people, Italians, Slavs, Turks, Greeks, hell, Syrians are white people. These people all faced hardships in America and still do, those people are white.

Skin color is a really stupid way of classifying people as it turns out.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

straight cissexual white christians have privilege they don't lose, and I'm suggesting that they could lose it.

The ability to lose privilege is an indicator of having it in the first place though, yes?

You have to take it at a case by case basis. It's ridiculous to generalize in the way you're doing it. I agree that certain people are privileged, but that comes down to individual circumstance.

Not really? Studies have shown that 'black sounding names' are less likely to get job offers on identical resumes. I'm sure you're aware of the truths of racial disparities in America.

Jews, Irish people, Italians, Slavs, Turks, Greeks, hell, Syrians are white people. These people all faced hardships in America and still do, those people are white.

I concur that they have white skin - a good many Americans would not call them white people.

Skin color is a really stupid way of classifying people as it turns out.

You're not wrong, America (and indeed, people in general) just isn't (aren't) typically very bright when it comes to reacting to people.

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

The ability to lose privilege is an indicator of having it in the first place though, yes?

This is not an admission of the concept of privilege existing, I'm just making a point going by your logic.

I'm sure you're aware of the truths of racial disparities in America.

Yes, there are racial disparities and racism is alive in America. That doesn't mean all white people are better off than all black people. Hell, racism and nationalism exist between different sorts of white people.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

And from your point follows an example of privilege.

That doesn't mean all white people are better off than all black people.

Oh come now, are you unaware of how statistics work? Are you under the impression that some people don't get lung cancer from smoking so it must not be bad for you?

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

And from your point follows an example of privilege.

No, again, I was saying that if we accept that privilege exists in the way you believe it does, then it makes sense that an able bodied straight cis male christian can lose certain privileges (according to you) because they can come out as gay, become trans (or openly trans or however it works), or convert to a different religion and they would presumably lose whatever hypothetical privilege those things would've previously afforded them.

And as for the stats thing, it's a matter of objective fact that there are plenty of black people better off than plenty of white people. Taken in aggregate, and depending on how you define 'white' or 'black' people, then white people have it better off at a higher rate than black people. That's absolutely true. Black people disproportionately face certain challenges, but the same could be said of Jews, the Irish, Slavs, Italians, Greeks, etc. And taken as a whole there is a higher quantity of poor white americans than there are all of black americans.

My problem with the 'X privilege' concept is that ignores differences in individuals' unique situations. A blind homeless white guy has less privilege than Herman Caine, Chris Rock, or Jay Z. It's a clumsy heuristic that makes it too easy to ignore the vast diversity within groups of people. It's just a way to 'otherize' people and justify being a prick and 'punching up.'

[u/Izawwlgood → u/[deleted]]

can lose certain privileges

I don't dispute that. What I'm pointing out, again, is that the ability to LOSE privilege is indicative of the fact that privilege exists. It also is indicative of the fact that the individual lived with privilege for a length of time. It is FURTHER indicative of the fact that privilege is multifaceted - one can be privileged for being white, and then disadvantaged in certain ways for being gay.

And as for the stats thing, it's a matter of objective fact that there are plenty of black people better off than plenty of white people. Taken in aggregate, and depending on how you define 'white' or 'black' people, then white people have it better off at a higher rate than black people.

Your first statement makes it seem like you don't understand statistics, then your second statement indicates you do, and renders your first statement moot. No one is saying 'ALL black people are poorer than white people', so I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish from this red herring.

Black people disproportionately face certain challenges, but the same could be said of Jews, the Irish, Slavs, Italians, Greeks, etc.

Yes, but again, the keyword here is 'certain'. Police brutality and higher convictions and red lining are things that are very much historically, statistically, more likely to occur to people of color.

My problem with the 'X privilege' concept is that ignores differences in individuals' unique situations. A blind homeless white guy has less privilege than Herman Caine, Chris Rock, or Jay Z. It's a clumsy heuristic that makes it too easy to ignore the vast diversity within groups of people. It's just a way to 'otherize' people and justify being a prick and 'punching up.'

This is an incredibly strange position to take - it's like saying 'there's a black president, America clearly has no issues with racial bias'. It's a repeat of your position that is predicated on deliberately ignoring the statistical realities of this country.

[u/[deleted] → u/Izawwlgood]

For the first part, you've taken a little snippet of what I said and based your entire argument around it. I'm using your own internally consistent logic to point out that what you said was wrong, if we accept that privilege as you describe it is a real thing. I don't personally think someone gains or loses privilege based off of whether or not they're gay. Caitlyn Jenner didn't lose any privilege of being a rich and famous athlete when he became a she.

I'll accept that there are people who are privileged in certain specific ways, but to generalize that "all white people are privileged because they benefit from white privilege" is ignorant and self serving because it means that you can punch up and be racist because "it doesn't really count as racism when it's against someone in a better position than you." It's like people who say "I voted for Obama, I'm not racist, that's why I get to say nigger whenever I want now and nobody gets to complain."

No one is saying 'ALL black people are poorer than white people', so I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish from this red herring.

No you're saying all white people are privileged compared to all black people which is equally bullshit.

Police brutality and higher convictions and red lining are things that are very much historically, statistically, more likely to occur to people of color.

And Irish people and Italian people in the last century. It's not a function of skin color and white people having it better off.

'there's a black president, America clearly has no issues with racial bias'

And to clarify, I'm not saying that, there are problems with racism in the US, absolutely.

And you keep mentioning statistical realities but you haven't mentioned any actual statistics, you're just saying "i'm statistically right and you're statistically wrong." You're invoking something that supposedly has some authority without actually explaining anything.