The innocence of people who get the vapors when someone within their hearing says or does something about which they are micro-offended. As an example consider the obese black woman who pushed merchandise from the shelves because she had, ….it really doesn’t matter what happened to her before she decided to push things off of the shelves. A video currently going viral shows an obese woman trashing a store because her food stamps benefit card was declined.
The clip features the unnamed woman lumbering around the convenience store sweeping items off the shelves as she repeatedly mumbles, “Call the police, call the police!”
She has issues, of course. WallMart decided not to prosecute but don’t miss the attitude caused by the belief that everyone is the same and she fits the definition even though the multi-culti / diversity dogma is a cognitive bias whereby individuals overestimate their own qualities and abilities.
Here’s a rather high brow idea of the claptrap people are being fed. This is from the Law Review of a very, very prestigious law school.
THE ILLUSORY DISTINCTION BETWEEN EQUALITY OF
OPPORTUNITY AND EQUALITY OF RESULT
“Our society should guarantee equality of opportunity, but not equality of result.” One hears that refrain or its equivalent with increasing frequency. Usually it is part of a general attack on government measures that redistribute wealth, or specifically on affirmative action, that is, race- and gender-conscious efforts to improve the status of minorities and women. The idea appears to be that the government’s role is to ensure that everyone starts off
from the same point, not that everyone ends up in the same condition. If people have equal opportunities, what they make of those opportunities is their responsibility. If they end up worse off, the government should not intervene to help them. 1 In this Article, I challenge the usefulness of the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of result. I do not suggest that the notion of equality of opportunity is an empty one; on the contrary, it is a powerful and important ideal. It is, however,
much more complex than the proponents of the distinction between “opportunity” and “result” acknowledge.
The most natural conception of equality of opportunity, is that equality of opportunity requires the elimination
of barriers to advancement that are in some sense arbitrary. I will try to show that this conception of equality of opportunity requires large-scale redistributions of resources-perhaps not literal equality of results, in the sense that every person must have the same resources, but a much closer approximation to that state than the advocates of “equality of opportunity, not result” would ever suspect (and probably much closer than anyone would desire).
The central idea is a simple and familiar one: talents and abilities, the qualities that (ideally) are responsible for inequalities in results, are in an important sense no less arbitrary than the barriers that any advocate of equality of opportunity would want to eliminate.
OPPORTUNITY AND EQUALITY OF RESULT
from the same point, not that everyone ends up in the same condition. If people have equal opportunities, what they make of those opportunities is their responsibility. If they end up worse off, the government should not intervene to help them. 1 In this Article, I challenge the usefulness of the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of result. I do not suggest that the notion of equality of opportunity is an empty one; on the contrary, it is a powerful and important ideal. It is, however,
much more complex than the proponents of the distinction between “opportunity” and “result” acknowledge.
The most natural conception of equality of opportunity, is that equality of opportunity requires the elimination
of barriers to advancement that are in some sense arbitrary. I will try to show that this conception of equality of opportunity requires large-scale redistributions of resources-perhaps not literal equality of results, in the sense that every person must have the same resources, but a much closer approximation to that state than the advocates of “equality of opportunity, not result” would ever suspect (and probably much closer than anyone would desire).
The central idea is a simple and familiar one: talents and abilities, the qualities that (ideally) are responsible for inequalities in results, are in an important sense no less arbitrary than the barriers that any advocate of equality of opportunity would want to eliminate.
Views: 4
