I wouldn’t say civil rights was a mistake. Everyone having an equal opportunity is great. Things go off the rails when you get into equal outcomes or attribute any disparity to some sort of sinister motive and never hold individuals accountable. Also this nonsensical idea that every field has to have a magical representation of people needs to be scrapped.
Except "equal opportunity" is as utopian of a vision as communism. People are different by accident of birth. Some are tall and some are short, some are retarded some are smart, etc. It isn't anybodys fault, there is no intent behind it but equality can't exist in a natural world.
A person born to be tall has a much better "opportunity" to play professional basketball than a person born to be short. The only way to equalize the opportunity there is changing the rules to intentionally harm the taller person and artificially boost the shorter person.
There are fundamental but uncomfortable truths that nobody is willing to discuss..
The average woman isn't as strong or smart or resilient as the average man. That means the top end of strength, intelligence and resilience or any other measurable category will be filled by men.
The average black is less intelligent and more aggressive and more impulsive than the average white. That means that the bottom end for the worse behavior of aggression and opportunism will be filled by blacks.
That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Some blacks are exceptionally smart, some women are exceptionally resilient. But anytime anyone makes comparisons by population those averages explain every "disparity". Its just that we can't say it and keep our jobs since these truths have been pushed outside of the overton window.
The correct answer is rigidly followed objectivity in standards. Even if those standards create a "disparate impact".
So equal opportunity in basketball just means a short person has to be really fucking good to make up for being short.
The common traits you identified among a certain group are the reason why the left wants "equity" aka "equal outcome", because actual equal opportunity puts blacks more in low-skilled, low-responsibility positions - which then causes racism.
What's actually needed is the opposite of "equity" - we need to enforce the sameness on the input side instead of the output side. For example, blacks do a lot better when there is discipline at levels that are too high for Europeans to tolerate and way too high for Asians. Separate education tracks. Or most of the problem can likely be overcome medically by countering the MAO-A gene variant that results in excess impulsiveness. But any solution would first require admitting the reality.
So how do we create a narrative that allows the people with no merit to maintain an illusion of "dignity" while still accepting that they will never be "on top"?
It used to be "shut up, work hard, don't be a dick and you get into heaven". But that narrative has been wounded by liberals and finished off by marxists.
I guess that is what I mean when I say equal opportunity. If there are standards for something everyone needs to meet them to make the team, get a job, etc. I’m all for helping the less fortunate but poisoning the minds of the poor to see all their issues as someone else’s fault or to throw money at problems and not look at individual actions is definitely not helping. And a fact of life is that some people will look better, have more money, or have more opportunities than I will. That is life. The sooner we teach that again the better.
The vast majority of opportunities are outcomes. Leftists want the state to sever the connection between parents and children so that the state can become the sole authority and source for morality, culture, tradition, etc.
A child born to rich parents didn’t “win the birth lottery”. That child was a deliberate product of an advantageous situation, and that situation was created or sustained by his or her parents (or even ancestors) through labor.
Imagine two sets of parents. The first set doggedly pursue wealth and end up in a position where their children have access to the best schools and jobs. The second set of parents are financially irresponsible, spending on useless goods and leisure, ending up in a position where their children have very little access to schools or jobs.
Why should government forcefully pave over the disparities between these two families when those disparities were earned? If the state is going to pick up any and all slack, why should parents behave responsibly? What does society look like when the government actively disincentivizes good behavior?
Now consider studies of spending habits of household by race. Repeatedly, we learn that black households spend frivolously on low ROI goods like jewelry, cars/trucks, and apparel - to a degree that dwarfs the similar spending of other races. This behavior is wildly dysgenic, and yet the inevitable consequences are made out to be the fault of white peoples. Why?
You are preaching to the choir. Blaming white people is easier than examining your own faults. But that is a basic rule of life. It is always easier to blame others for your problems. My parents constantly told me about saving and investing growing up but I didn’t start taking that seriously til my late 30s when I had lots of credi debt. Whose fault is that? Mine. Hopefully I’ll be debt free within 5 years but if I had listened I wouldn’t be in this boat.
They're never going to give up the narrative as long as it gives them power.
Civil rights were a mistake.
I wouldn’t say civil rights was a mistake. Everyone having an equal opportunity is great. Things go off the rails when you get into equal outcomes or attribute any disparity to some sort of sinister motive and never hold individuals accountable. Also this nonsensical idea that every field has to have a magical representation of people needs to be scrapped.
Except "equal opportunity" is as utopian of a vision as communism. People are different by accident of birth. Some are tall and some are short, some are retarded some are smart, etc. It isn't anybodys fault, there is no intent behind it but equality can't exist in a natural world.
A person born to be tall has a much better "opportunity" to play professional basketball than a person born to be short. The only way to equalize the opportunity there is changing the rules to intentionally harm the taller person and artificially boost the shorter person.
There are fundamental but uncomfortable truths that nobody is willing to discuss..
The average woman isn't as strong or smart or resilient as the average man. That means the top end of strength, intelligence and resilience or any other measurable category will be filled by men.
The average black is less intelligent and more aggressive and more impulsive than the average white. That means that the bottom end for the worse behavior of aggression and opportunism will be filled by blacks.
That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Some blacks are exceptionally smart, some women are exceptionally resilient. But anytime anyone makes comparisons by population those averages explain every "disparity". Its just that we can't say it and keep our jobs since these truths have been pushed outside of the overton window.
The correct answer is rigidly followed objectivity in standards. Even if those standards create a "disparate impact".
"Equal opportunity" is a synonym for merit.
So equal opportunity in basketball just means a short person has to be really fucking good to make up for being short.
The common traits you identified among a certain group are the reason why the left wants "equity" aka "equal outcome", because actual equal opportunity puts blacks more in low-skilled, low-responsibility positions - which then causes racism.
What's actually needed is the opposite of "equity" - we need to enforce the sameness on the input side instead of the output side. For example, blacks do a lot better when there is discipline at levels that are too high for Europeans to tolerate and way too high for Asians. Separate education tracks. Or most of the problem can likely be overcome medically by countering the MAO-A gene variant that results in excess impulsiveness. But any solution would first require admitting the reality.
So how do we create a narrative that allows the people with no merit to maintain an illusion of "dignity" while still accepting that they will never be "on top"?
It used to be "shut up, work hard, don't be a dick and you get into heaven". But that narrative has been wounded by liberals and finished off by marxists.
I guess that is what I mean when I say equal opportunity. If there are standards for something everyone needs to meet them to make the team, get a job, etc. I’m all for helping the less fortunate but poisoning the minds of the poor to see all their issues as someone else’s fault or to throw money at problems and not look at individual actions is definitely not helping. And a fact of life is that some people will look better, have more money, or have more opportunities than I will. That is life. The sooner we teach that again the better.
The vast majority of opportunities are outcomes. Leftists want the state to sever the connection between parents and children so that the state can become the sole authority and source for morality, culture, tradition, etc.
A child born to rich parents didn’t “win the birth lottery”. That child was a deliberate product of an advantageous situation, and that situation was created or sustained by his or her parents (or even ancestors) through labor.
Imagine two sets of parents. The first set doggedly pursue wealth and end up in a position where their children have access to the best schools and jobs. The second set of parents are financially irresponsible, spending on useless goods and leisure, ending up in a position where their children have very little access to schools or jobs.
Why should government forcefully pave over the disparities between these two families when those disparities were earned? If the state is going to pick up any and all slack, why should parents behave responsibly? What does society look like when the government actively disincentivizes good behavior?
Now consider studies of spending habits of household by race. Repeatedly, we learn that black households spend frivolously on low ROI goods like jewelry, cars/trucks, and apparel - to a degree that dwarfs the similar spending of other races. This behavior is wildly dysgenic, and yet the inevitable consequences are made out to be the fault of white peoples. Why?
You are preaching to the choir. Blaming white people is easier than examining your own faults. But that is a basic rule of life. It is always easier to blame others for your problems. My parents constantly told me about saving and investing growing up but I didn’t start taking that seriously til my late 30s when I had lots of credi debt. Whose fault is that? Mine. Hopefully I’ll be debt free within 5 years but if I had listened I wouldn’t be in this boat.