Likewise. That's what I'm arguing for too... That's equity no?
No. The difference is about how people are identified, so I'll address it after your comment about identity.
So what are you saying if I've summarised it wrongly? I'm struggling to understand what you mean by unchosen group identity.
Group identity is when >1 person is viewed as the same entity based on whatever criteria the person doing the viewing considers important. I specify
unchosen group identity because I think it's an extremely important distinction because I regard a person's choices as mattering.
So, for example, "white" is unchosen whereas "communist" is chosen.
Chosen group identities are a limited and somewhat shaky way to reasonably make some conclusions about a person and should be used with caution. For example, all communists have the core ideas of communism in common, but that's all. It's a valid group identity only in that limited context.
Unchosen group identies are irrational prejudice. Nothing more than that. It's the infamous phrase "they're all the same". It's the fundamental belief behind irrational prejudice. It can happen when chosen group identies are over-applied, but it always happens when unchosen group identities are applied.
"equity" is based on unchosen group identities, on irrational prejudice. Usually sexism or racism. "equity" is nothing more than an implementation of irrational prejudice and an excuse for it, a means of pretending that the irrational is rational. It's victim-blaming bigotry in the simplest, most overt way - discriminating against people for being the "wrong sex", "wrong race" or whatever and then blaming them for being discriminated against. It's like a bully punching someone and then blaming their victim for hitting their fist with their face. And expecting an apology. Or it's like jews being expelled from medieval England for being jews and being blamed for "making" England expel them because jews were all wealthy usurers, don't ya know? In the terms of modern propaganda, they were privileged. So it was their fault they were punished. They're all the same and they're all to blame. That's the core of "equity". Discriminating against people who are the "wrong race" or "wrong sex" or whatever and then "rationalising" that by the circular fallacy of using irrational prejudice to "justify" irrational prejudice. Jews are all the same, all jews are wealthy usurers, therefore punishing all jews for being wealthy usurers is just, rational and fair. It's "equity".
What I'm supporting is, as I have said before, treating people as people. Each person as a person. So helping people who are disadvantaged or overlooked.
Not helping people who are the "right race" or "right sex" or whatever.
The difference is impossible to understand for anyone who believes in unchosen group identity because they have chosen to completely reject the entire concept of "a person". A person who supports "equity" genuinely believes that all "blacks" are the same entity, all "whites" are the same entity, all female people are the same entity, all male people are the same entity, etc. They can't comprehend the idea that circumstances can vary from one person to another. Believing that "they're all the same" removes the possibility of any such variation. They're all the same, so they can't be different.
I'll try another example to illustrate the difference:
Person A was born into a stable, contented and well off family. They grew up in a happy family living in a nice home in a nice area. They had everything they wanted, material and psychological. They had supportive parents who sat down with them, taught them, played with them, guided them, advised them, paid for whatever would help them. They had a high quality education in a safe environment. They lived in a safe environment. They did well in school and have become old enough to go to university and start a degree. Their parents have plenty of money. They have a fair bit of money themself - their parents have been building up a fund since they were born and now it's theirs (along with 18 years of compound interest).
Person B was born into drug addiction and a life in which the only stable thing was the constant grinding poverty. Their squalid home life was one of constant stress and aggression. They lived in a rough area raddled with gang violence. They had the bare minimum for survival. Their parents didn't give a rat's arse about them and couldn't have taught them even if they'd wanted to, which they didn't. They went to a school where education had to take a back seat to crowd control, where bullying was the norm and they got it more than most because they strove to learn and that marked them out as a weirdo who "deserved" a beating. Despite all that, they did well in school and have become old enough to go to university and start a degree. Their parents have no money and wouldn't give them any if they did. They have no money. The only way they could have got money would have been from drug dealing, which they chose not to do. Despite being beaten by dealers who wanted to use them as low-level dealers when they were younger. There's no way B can afford to go to university. They couldn't even afford to travel to the university.
Under my preferred system, B would get some financial help (and thus opportunity) because B -
and I mean B, the person, the individual - is disadvantaged in a relevant way. A wouldn't get that extra money because they already have money. They already have the opportunity that money buys. They've had it all their life.
Under "equity", A would get the financial help instead of B. B can go die in an alley, stabbed over an imagined slight because they looked at someone for a fraction of a second too long or something. It's their fault.
Why is that what happens under "equity"? Because under "equity", A is assigned the unchosen group identity "black" (=victim = superior) and B is assigned the unchosen group identity "white" (=wrong =to blame). I didn't mention that in my descriptions of them because to me it doesn't matter at all. Under "equity" it's the only thing that matters.
Hah, nice spin. My statement was clearly too sweeping (somewhat intentionally).
I think it's the core issue rather than a spin. Allowing things you
don't agree with is, IMO, the core of advocating freedom. Particularly in speech, but also in deed.
