Hacker News Reader

Comment by ekianjo | Hacker News Reader

Why would you want equality of outcomes anyway? It goes against individual Freedom. As long as opportunities are as equal as they can be, the rest is just the reflection of what individuals want to focus on and achieve. Equality of outcomes will force some people to do what they dont want to, which is undesirable on many levels.

View on HN

Because outcomes are easy to measure. Oppurtunity isn't.

It doesn't help that we have indoctrinated a generation that there is no fundamental difference between any subgroup, so difference in outcome must be evidence of difference in oppurtunity.

Sure outcomes are easy to measure. So what feminists have to say about the lack of males in nursing? The lack of males in social services? The lack of males in elementary schools? The excess of male suicides vs females? Are they actually complaining about the lack of equality of outcome in such fields, or are they just cherry picking what fits their agenda ?

A rhetorical question.

Yes. There is ample work in academia on these subjects and real work happening in activists communities on these subjects.

A rhetorical question that says "I don't understand what feminism is".

>Why would you want equality of outcomes anyway? It goes against individual Freedom.

"An interesting article in The Atlantic talks about studies showing that liberals think in terms of fairness while conservatives think in terms of morality. So if you want to persuade someone on the other team, you need to speak in their language. We almost never do that. That’s why you rarely see people change their opinions.

....If your aim is to persuade, you have to speak the language of the other. Talking about fairness to a conservative, or morality to a liberal, fails at the starting gate. The other side just can’t hear what you are saying."

http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/02/15/how-to-persuade-the-other...

Yes, but words have no meaning at this stage, because "fairness" means completely different things depending on who you talk to. It's very ambiguous, because the value systems are completely different. For example, you could make a case that "redistributing wealth is fair", yes also claim that "owning the reward of your hard work is fair" and they kind of go against each others.

This sounds similar to the work of Jonathan Haidt. https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?l...

Not that I support this idea, but you can think of this as equal opportunity vs equal equity. Some people might be better off naturally, and others might have created something better for themselves, but equal equity means that those who have succeeded should share the benefit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com