Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:09 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:50 am
...the present extremes are pushing not for 'equality' but for maximum dominion of power between those who exclusively prefer
patriarchy or
matriarchy.
I think it's simpler than that, Scott.
The terms "patriarchy/matriarchy" imply systems of rule. It makes it sound as if these selfish people care which political ideology drives the system. But I think they have little actual concern for other women/men, so they don't care if anybody else but themselves is granted prestige and allocated benefits. Their advocacy of either option is strictly defined by whether or not it serves their own interest. It's devoid of any larger vision than that.
But you're right: "equality" isn't even a word they use anymore. They say "equity," by which they mean something quite different. "Equality" would mean, "Give everybody the same opportunities and treatment." But "equity" means, "Give me privileges to make up for all the things I think I''m owed but haven't been getting....freebie me up."
Equality can be quantified: everybody gets
the same.
Equity is determined by nothing more real than the imagined "unfairnesses" perceived in some idiot's head, and is actually defined as
unequal treatment aimed at balancing some alleged "scales" of unfairness.
Equality is "Nobody is descriminated against on the basis of race, colour or creed."
Equity is "Favour me especially, because my skin's the right colour."
Equality is, "You all have an equal shot at this job."
Equity is, "Sorry, you're the wrong gender, and we're short on our quota."
They use the term "equity" in the hope that you'll mistake it for "equality": because equality is something nobody objects to. So they try to transfer the apparent reasonableness of
equality to the perverse anti-virtue of
equity, in order to dignify their deliberate discrimination.
This is all standard CRT stuff.
Yes, I agree with this point too. My point implies that these are selfish interests of those in power (or appealing for power) who
advocate in exclusive interests....but of the 'group' or class that defines their 'family' of interest. As such, the extremes of feminism today advocate for that 'equity' (a good term of distinction) and merely want to flip the whole paradigm to an 'alternate' status of power. Both extremes would interpret that they speak for whole classes (like 'races') but are actually relatively privileged (in some capacity) when they get their extremes asserted in laws.
I am now treating both extremes as 'fascist' this way where I am defining this as "the predominant view of a belief in some exclusive interests to favor by power in lawmaking (politics) some CULTURAL class as being coequivalent to some GENETIC class."
Thus, a person who strictly advocates for ONE or smaller subset of all distinctly misclassified groups in present traditional power are Right-winged (because they want to
conserve the power they already have) versus those who AGREE to the exclusive distinctions but lack the present power as single automous groups, favor MULTIPLE groups in direct opposition to them. The '
democratic' factor on the Left is not of
individuals but of those exclusive genetic-cultural classes as distinctly acceptable minimal voter (pluralities). BOTH extremes do not want anyone to notice that wealth/power differences are what is at fault.
The flaw when they use statistics is by seeking out some relatively impoverished class (based upon wealth) that has the largest biological (genetic) plural or majority association of apparent imbalance, and stop short of the stats that actually show the imbalaces are not 'sexist' or 'racist' but strictly due to differences based upon the very wealth and/or power by chance or inevitability.
For instance, if you are say racist or sexist AND you HAVE power, you will favor the extreme Right strategy of pointing out the flaws of cultural degradation and so seek stats that identify how 'liberal' extremes are supporting the relatively absurd calls for identity recognition. The actual 'liberation' is only still realistically coming the
wealthier or more privileged classes of those falsely misappropriating genetic inheritance as justifying some environmental or cultural association, like
gender identity, for instance. But the Right wing extremes will focus on the Nature of independent free expressions as Un-natural whereas...
if you are racist AND sexist but DO NOT HAVE power, you will favor the extreme Left strategy of pointing out the imbalance of the selective pluralities who tend to be more predominant in the economically more disadvantaged classes (the poor) while dismissing the fact that the asserted genetic classes they are referencing are not biased due to merely cultural biases but to the general class of impoverished people anywhere regardless of race or sex. They then falsely compare how the 'victim' class is non-represented in the wealthier clubs ignoring that no matter what, FAVORITISM of your own is what tends to always concentrate those with wealth and power towards a more dominant genetic class. They intentionally ignore the more minor majorities of the impoverished classes as still of the same stereotype of the conservatives in power.
Both extremes are intolerant and relatively 'fascist' AND both foster MORE discrimination than exists without either interference. Both IMPOSE upon the likely majority of individual towards aligning to one extreme or the other or are forced to sit outside without a voice.