JasSmith @ JasSmith @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

445

Joined

2 yr. ago

Would it also be a pretty good trade for human safety if whites and Asians were allowed to choose people of the same race?

Equity in this case is providing additional opportunities for education to those who need it.

That would be equality. Everyone given the same opportunity to benefit from resources on the basis of need. Equity would be providing additional resources to people on the basis of race, for example, irrespective of their need. The purpose of which to ensure outcomes are equitable.

Equity is antithetical to equality. They are oppositional ideals. Either you aim to provide equal opportunity for everyone, or you intentionally limit opportunity to ensure equal outcomes. Democracy and multiculturalism is premised on equality. It seeks to ensure the right of different groups to behave differently and arrive at different outcomes. For example, Asian high-school students spend significantly more time studying and doing homework than any other ethnic or racial group. You can verify these stats yourself by going to the cited source. Unsurprisingly, this group earns more, has higher employment, and lower crime.

Equity, on the other hand, is authoritarian. To use the example above, it means either forcing Asian children to study less, or forcing children of other ethnicities to study more. There is no room for cultural differences or free expression. Equity is only achievable under an authoritarian system, because in order to achieve it, it requires ensuring every child has exactly the same experience in life. The same amount of homework. The same schools. The same friends and family. The same sports and extracurricular activities. The same hobbies. They must study the same subjects in school and universities. It requires complete homogeneity. No modern society wants this, and the use of the term "equity" is deeply alarming to anyone who considers themselves democratic or liberal in the classical sense.

Which blows my mind. So the developer, Massive Monster, had an open-ended agreement with Unity which allowed them to unilaterally increase prices. That's easily one of the dumbest business decisions I've seen in the gaming space. How can they build a game around an engine which gives the owner carte blanche to take whatever share of revenue they wish? While I think this is a crazy pricing strategy, I'm struggling to sympathise with Massive Monster. At minimum they should have had a lawyer browse their agreement prior to signing. I wouldn't be surprised if other gems were hidden in there about IP rights.

Parents have a right to decide which materials are taught to their kids. I know parental rights make some of you uncomfortable, but you’ll just have to find a way to get over it. I won’t allow my young kids to be given literal child porn.

This is Lemmy. Of course they don’t have kids. Most of these people are severely emotionally stunted teenagers going through a Che Guevara phase.

Leather is far more environmentally friendly. Slightly more CO2, but zero plastic, micro-plastic, and PFAS pollution. Properly cared for and produced, it also lasts a lifetime. Apple’s leather products of late were awful quality.

Are they trying to lose to Unreal?

I am incredibly underwhelmed.

Reminder: America isn’t a capitalist country because there are antitrust laws.

/s

It’s not perfect, but I’m beginning to think it’s the best we will get. It’s probably the best we deserve. So many instances immediately turned into r/Politics. Proving that it wasn’t Reddit which was infested with brain rot. It’s the users.

It’s been wild over the last few years to see authoritarians cheering on corporate social media censorship, as though it will never be turned on them.

Fuck censorship.

I still remember that meme with the Valve gear fucking a guy in the ass. Steam was not well received.

That brings back memories. I used to play ARC on WON. TEN prior to that. Anyone remember Kali? I think it’s still running.

If you only go after the people with money, then yes. Then it’s not about justice or morality at all. It’s about money.

Yes they made a financial commitment to various states, companies, and individuals to compensate slave owners for their financial loss when Britain ended the slave trade. I think that was pragmatic and commendable. I don’t see how that addresses me comment.

it’s about paying people for the work they did.

Okay, so pay slaves for the work they did. But we can’t, because they’re long dead. So that’s not what you’re asking at all. You’re asking for people who never owned slaves to pay people who were never slaves. Not all British white people are wealthy as a result of historical slavery. In fact, most British were dirt poor and never owned any slaves at all. Today, their ancestors remain dirt poor. You’d ask them to pay recompense for something for which neither they nor their ancestors are guilty.

I’m white and of Irish descent. My ancestors were subject to genocide under the Irish Potato Famine. Am I morally owed restitution? Further back, my ancestors were subject to slavery along the North African coast and Middle East for hundreds of years in the Barbary slave trade. Am I owed reparations from the numerous countries involved in that? To me it quickly becomes apparent that any feigned moral outrage begins and stops at white people. Everyone’s ancestors are guilty of atrocities if we go back far enough. Everyone’s ancestors were subject to atrocities as well.

So the morality of the exercise hinges on the wealth of the accused?

This is getting silly now. We’ve agreed for thousands of years that children aren’t responsible for the sins of their fathers. This attempt to resurrect Babylonian era values is absurd. Critical thinking is clearly absent in modern schooling.

That’s nothing. You should hear about what the Vikings did. And the Romans. And the Sumerians.