My apologies. I should have been clearer.

I don't believe there's any injustice here — Terrapin Station

Suppose I make a judgement that there is no injustice here, yet someone else claims the contrary. Is my judgement sufficient?

One of the outstanding characteristics of the privileged is their inherent inability to see their privilege. Folk just do see injustice that does not effect them - until they listen.

Is your argument that feminism does not effect you, therefore it is of no value? — Banno

"Black Feminism" does affect me because for one I'm black, and two, the sexual oppression that black women have historically as well as currently face affects me indirectly because of society's negative portrayal of the oversexualization of black women (A great example of this is the porn site "Ghetto Gaggers") through pejorative categorizations that I too, am a part of.

Contrast to that when a white woman declares she is a feminist and cites her issues in society although my gender (not me specifically) is a part of the problem, society still sees me in human value as unequal to a white woman--still (the economic gap between a white woman and black male is indicative of this). So the issues I currently face such as systemic racism is at the forefront of the war I continue to fight and until my demographic can achieve absolute full human status in the eyes of the society I live in, so-called feminism (or white feminism) does not greatly affect me.

I must be misunderstanding you.

I'm more impressed by Martha Nussbaum. It better reflects the view of justice over mere equity reflected in the picture I posted. — Banno

I would have to look her up. Sorry in undergrad in my women's philosophy course my professor was a staunch advocate of the writings of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine Mackinnon. Needless to say, I hated feminism because of them in undergrad.

Suppose I make a judgement that there is no injustice here, yet someone else claims the contrary. Is my judgement sufficient? — Banno

Sufficient for what?

One of the outstanding characteristics of the privileged is their inherent inability to see their privilege. — Banno

Even if I were to agree with that, aren't I in the demographic in question?

Sure. It was the "It is of no value" that bothered me. My wife's disability and her advocacy linked me up to feminism and hence to gender issues, sexuality, institutionalisation, the plight of First Nations people and so on. I don't see these as so distinct.

After reading Nussbaum, I find an account based on frustrated human capacities far more useful that an account based on equity.

My point is the simple observation that treating everyone equally serves only to maintain existing inequities. — Banno

I agree.

The great disgust at man - it strangled me and had crept into my throat: and what the soothsayer had presaged: "All is alike, nothing is worthwhile, knowledge strangles."

A long twilight limped on before me, a fatally weary, fatally intoxicated sadness, which spoke with yawning mouth.

"Eternally he returns, the man of whom you are weary, the small man" — Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, p172

My point is the simple observation that treating everyone equally serves only to maintain existing inequities.
— Banno

I agree. — Merkwurdichliebe

I didn't see that comment but someone would have to explain it to me. It seems contradictory. We can't both maintain inequities yet be treating people equally.

Sure. Shame about the prose; but yeah, difference is good.

So be charitable and assume that what was said makes sense.

What is achieved by the inequity in the distribution of the boxes in the picture above?

If every individual is equally unique, and we treat them all the same, then that would necessitate the oppression of certain character types, preventing them from realizing their uniqe potential.

the prose is Nietzsche talking shit about equality.

The picture of people watching a sporting event? Those folks arent being treated equally re having a view of the game.

then that would necessitate the oppression of certain character types, preventing them from realizing their uniqe potential. — Merkwurdichliebe

So if some people are treated so that they reach their potential and others are not, are they treated equally?

The folks in the nose bleed section are...fuckin animals

I can understand treating individuals differently according to their individual needs, but I cannot comprehend treating entire races/genders differently according to some kind of generalized difference in needs. To do so would merely repeat historical mistakes.

I don't know about that. But in the experiment I layed out, to treat unique individuals as equal has an opposite effect. It plays out by preventing some from attaining what is rightly theirs, while it allows others to remain unimpeded. So the question is: how close does oppression equate to inequality?

And in the second box?

But you put it so much more eloquently:

If every individual is equally unique, and we treat them all the same, then that would necessitate the oppression of certain character types, preventing them from realizing their uniqe potential. — Merkwurdichliebe

And so nothing changes.

Thank you sir.

Obviously they're being treated equally re the view of the game (well, or as equally as possible --it's not possible for them to have an identical view)

Why does nothing change? I'm agreeing to treating people differently, just not through the dogmatic lens of immutable identity.

I don't know about that. But in the experiment I layed out, — Merkwurdichliebe

Which post has the experiment you laid out?

So tell the same story in terms of frustrated potential.

We can't both maintain inequities yet be treating people equally. — Terrapin Station

What did the unequal distribution of boxes lead to?

So tell the same story in terms of frustrated potential. — Banno

No idea what you're talking about there.

What did the unequal distribution of boxes lead to? — Banno

Whether it's unequal depends on how you frame it. If we're talking about with respect to the view, it's not unequal. What's going to matter is what people are concerned with.

The one that is considering the relation of unique individuality to equality, and testing whether or not treating unique individualities equal has an opposite effect.

in

I'm not about to read through the entire thread trying to figure out what post that might be.

The Australian Liberal Party has 74% men in the Australian Parliament.

Their opposition, the Labour Party, has 53% men.

The Liberal narrative is along the lines you are adopting. They claim that the disparity is due to merit.

Should the Liberals do something to redress this imbalance?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-06/fact-check-liberal-women-in-parliament/9796976

No idea what you're talking about there. — Terrapin Station

One out of three people could see the gamer, despite all three being capable of seeing the game. Two of them had their capabilities frustrated. This frustration was removed by a redistribution of the boxes.

Are you high? It's like your memory bottomed out and you forgot what our discussion was about, a discussion you initiated.

Whether it's unequal depends on how you frame it. If we're talking about with respect to the view, it's not unequal. — Terrapin Station

Indeed. So how should it be framed? How would you frame it?

IN the first box they are treated equally. If that situation were maintained, the inability of two-thirds of them to reach their potential would be maintained. Treating everyone equally serves only to maintain existing inequities.

And so an inequity was introduced...