Jordan Peterson: Inequality does not always imply discrimination
Comments
-
Say goddamn! Fucking A right, boy. Spot on.
People on the Right have to recognise that the current distribution of wealth and power does not necessarily reflect the distribution of wealth and power as it would exist under conditions of perfect equality of opportunity. That’s because equality of opportunity is an aspirational goal that is constantly undermined by human desire for unearned advantage. From tax-breaks for well-connected individuals to protections for uncompetitive firms, equal opportunity will always be threatened by privilege.
People on the Left have to recognise that unequal outcomes do not necessarily reflect conspiracies and systemic oppression. Inequality arises for a variety of reasons, including differing abilities, choices and preferences among individuals. As such, unequal outcomes must be assessed on their merits and without prejudice. The question that ought to be asked by all those who care about living in a fair society is the same question that the proponents of the Enlightenment would have asked, Is this instance of inequality a result of unequal treatment before the law? If so, let’s address it. If not, let’s pause and think about it some more. -
While I do agree with the larger point. Those two points written together aren't the best presentation.PurpleThrobber said:Say goddamn! Fucking A right, boy. Spot on.
People on the Right have to recognise that the current distribution of wealth and power does not necessarily reflect the distribution of wealth and power as it would exist under conditions of perfect equality of opportunity. That’s because equality of opportunity is an aspirational goal that is constantly undermined by human desire for unearned advantage. From tax-breaks for well-connected individuals to protections for uncompetitive firms, equal opportunity will always be threatened by privilege.
People on the Left have to recognise that unequal outcomes do not necessarily reflect conspiracies and systemic oppression. Inequality arises for a variety of reasons, including differing abilities, choices and preferences among individuals. As such, unequal outcomes must be assessed on their merits and without prejudice. The question that ought to be asked by all those who care about living in a fair society is the same question that the proponents of the Enlightenment would have asked, Is this instance of inequality a result of unequal treatment before the law? If so, let’s address it. If not, let’s pause and think about it some more.
While there are some idiots on the left that think there is systematic oppression (one of my friends is dead set on the war on drugs being about the oppression of blacks). It's not really about oppression. But more that the system is setup for the rich to get richer and poor get poorer. Although the country is also probably the best in the world to provide opportunity for hard workers to become financially independent. -
Spoken like an avowed party member. Kudos on another $0.06 earned, komrad.
-
Got anything to add to the discussion?PurpleThrobber said:Spoken like an avowed party member. Kudos on another $0.06 earned, komrad.
-
If the “system” was set up for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer how is it so many formally poor people/famlies are no longer living in poverty? Take a look at the percentage of the population that lived in poverty 100 years ago compared to how many live in poverty today. Also compare the state of poverty in America today to poverty 100 years ago.
I was once poor, and grew up in poverty. How is it that I’m no longer in that position today if the “system” was designed for me to get poorer?
There are numerous people today who are doing very well for themselves and their families who came from a very humble background, if your claims about the “system” were true this wouldn’t be the case. -
Read my last sentence. Fuck you are dumb.SFGbob said:If the “system” was set up for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer how is it so many formally poor people/famlies are no longer living in poverty? Take a look at the percentage of the population that lived in poverty 100 years ago compared to how many live in poverty today. Also compare the state of poverty in America today to poverty 100 years ago.
I was once poor, and grew up in poverty. How is it that I’m no longer in that position today if the “system” was designed for me to get poorer?
There are numerous people today who are doing very well for themselves and their families who came from a very humble background, if your claims about the “system” were true this wouldn’t be the case. -
Oh so the fact that you contradict yourself in your dumbfuckery absolves you of the dumbfuckery?2001400ex said:
Read my last sentence. Fuck you are dumb.SFGbob said:If the “system” was set up for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer how is it so many formally poor people/famlies are no longer living in poverty? Take a look at the percentage of the population that lived in poverty 100 years ago compared to how many live in poverty today. Also compare the state of poverty in America today to poverty 100 years ago.
I was once poor, and grew up in poverty. How is it that I’m no longer in that position today if the “system” was designed for me to get poorer?
There are numerous people today who are doing very well for themselves and their families who came from a very humble background, if your claims about the “system” were true this wouldn’t be the case.
It's not really about oppression. But more that the system is setup for the rich to get richer and poor get poorer. Although the country is also probably the best in the world to provide opportunity for hard workers to become financially independent.
What "system" are you referring to Hondo? And while you acknowledge that this county is the best at providing opportunity, that doesn't negate the "system" that you cite that is designed to make the rich get richer and the poor to get poorer.
Don't blame the reader for the fact that you write like a barely literate moron. -
-
Between the quote from the article and the paid-post reply...I got it covered.2001400ex said:
Got anything to add to the discussion?PurpleThrobber said:Spoken like an avowed party member. Kudos on another $0.06 earned, komrad.
-
Embarrassing.SFGbob said:
Oh so the fact that you contradict yourself in your dumbfuckery absolves you of the dumbfuckery?2001400ex said:
Read my last sentence. Fuck you are dumb.SFGbob said:If the “system” was set up for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer how is it so many formally poor people/famlies are no longer living in poverty? Take a look at the percentage of the population that lived in poverty 100 years ago compared to how many live in poverty today. Also compare the state of poverty in America today to poverty 100 years ago.
I was once poor, and grew up in poverty. How is it that I’m no longer in that position today if the “system” was designed for me to get poorer?
There are numerous people today who are doing very well for themselves and their families who came from a very humble background, if your claims about the “system” were true this wouldn’t be the case.
It's not really about oppression. But more that the system is setup for the rich to get richer and poor get poorer. Although the country is also probably the best in the world to provide opportunity for hard workers to become financially independent.
What "system" are you referring to Hondo? And while you acknowledge that this county is the best at providing opportunity, that doesn't negate the "system" that you cite that is designed to make the rich get richer and the poor to get poorer.
Don't blame the reader for the fact that you write like a barely literate moron.
