Leaderboard

You are. It isn't about the dictionary definition of equity. Just as how the social justice crowd has re-defined "racism" to hinge on power, "equity" has been re-defined to mean equality of outcome, usually with respect to money but also frequently with respect to social power. So, when the term is used in the context of that video, they are talking about social power, and not fair treatment in front of the law. It is a loaded codeword that is intended to sound like "equality" to those not paying attention. This new definition is used commonly in the social science sphere. Here's what Bret Weinstein, a self-identified progressive university professor says about equity:

We ordered Christmas dinner from a local place to throw a little business their way with the side benefit of having more time since an entire day wasn’t thrown away with cooking. I’ve probably spent more on take out during the pandemic than in the previous 2-3 years combined. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The root of the issue lies in what people interpret "treated equally" to mean. The philosophers upon whose tenets western society has been built interpret that to mean "all individuals treated equally before the law". Unfortunately that is not a definition that is shared across the political and philosophical spectrum, and that is the crux.

We have been eating outside, getting to go, and tipping generously because not everyone has the same pay stability that the military provides. I feel like we should help keep our local economies going. Except clovis, let that place burn.

Nope I like having small businesses in my downtown. I do what I can to support them.

Assholes are everywhere, but they don’t define 90% of us. The unfortunate part is so many of the 90% have forgotten that and have determined if you don’t see something exactly their way/challenge their opinion (and by extension their political team), you are the enemy and “on the other side.” It’s amazing how incredibly narrow minded people get when they fall to this and aggressively defend/argue their side’s talking points while completely ignoring any counterpoint presented. That’s not to say we should all have to agree to be “a good society,” but the vitriol hate “for the other side” is crushing us, and we’re all letting it every time we do as the media/some dipshit congressman says, or in conversation completely ignore someone’s words because we’re too busy developing our counterattack to actually listen to/read what someone else has presented. My hope for this next year is the people wake up and realize we don’t have to let ourselves play this bullshit game anymore. They actually have no power over us if we just say, “yeah go fuck yourself” and be cool with each other, even when we disagree.

Well, thank you for proving my point. I didn't say mainstream, specifically. And in fact I made it pretty obvious that I don't think all Democrats are SJW lunatics. So, let's stick with what I did say. The ideological engine of the party (not the voters) is being driven by exactly these types of lunatics. That you are unaware of them is irrelevant. They are *everywhere* in academia, politics, media, and especially big tech companies. While you go on with your life, blissfully unaware, they are whispering in the ears off those making the decisions. Critical race theory, anti-racism, equity... There are a ton of pseudo-intellectual theories that are gaining traction. You shrug them off because you're a rational human, but this curriculum is being taught in classrooms and boardrooms across the nation, and many people are buying the dogma. Again, regardless of your ignorance to the philosophy. White Fragility has been a Best Seller for over a year. That's not fringe. Read it and tell me it's not the most insane shit you've ever read. Yet, it's definitely relevant on the institutional left. So, exactly like I said in my post, liberal voters don't know what their own party is espousing. There's no conservative equivalent right now. If Richard Spencer was making huge book deals and having his lectures quoted by sitting senators and presidential candidates, I'd agree with you. But that's not what's happening.

This seems to be the biggest disconnect in the conversation these days. Well-intentioned liberal voters are unaware of the the doctrine being espoused by the "intellectuals" driving their party. Makes the conversation difficult when the conservatives are more knowledgeable of what the progressives are pushing than the liberal voter engaged in the discussion. Another common retort is that such terminology and the associated arguments represent the crazy fringe of the party. But I don't think it's fair to argue that Ta'-Nehisi Coates, Robin DiAngelo, or Ibram X. Kendi are "fringe" anymore. They are thought leaders being quoted at the highest levels of power. So when a liberal cites the dictionary, it demonstrates immediately that they don't even know what "their side" is preaching.

That is not what "equity" means. It has nothing to do with "fair treatment". Equity means "equality of outcome".

Does that apply to the homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist and bigoted Nazis on the right as well?

I saw this video on the death of public intellectuals a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty good. The discussion you guys are having reminded me of it: https://fb.watch/2D-2IP9Z6X/

The government didn’t pay for the auto sync on the chip, expect that with the Amazon and Google models.

Do you have to sync the app with the chip or does it do it automatically?