On Liberalism....from The New Republic, a conservative organization

[WillJ8787]

On Liberalism....(Parity) from The New Republic, a conservative organization

Source:
https://newrepublic.com/article/158346/willful-blindness-reactionary-liberalism

Of particular interest is the discussion of free speech and how one(an individual) has free speech and how one does not.

Parity according to The New Republic...it's another word for equality and equity.

"A minority chef who says she wants to be paid as much as her white colleagues has not said that white people are inferior; an unarmed black man under the knee of a policeman and begging for his life is not asking to be conferred a special privilege. The goal is parity, not superiority."

 

[CornusKousa]

Source:
https://newrepublic.com/article/158346/willful-blindness-reactionary-liberalism

Of particular interest is the discussion of free speech and how one(an individual) has free speech and how one does not.

Parity according to The New Republic...it's another word for equality and equity.

"A minority chef who says she wants to be paid as much as her white colleagues has not said that white people are inferior; an unarmed black man under the knee of a policeman and begging for his life is not asking to be conferred a special privilege. The goal is parity, not superiority."

So how do you get "parity" (equity, NOT equality) without institutionalizing superiority??

And we're back, yet again with the lefty conundrum, how does comrade make equity without AK-47??? Without Gulag???

 

[WillJ8787]

I suggest you look up what Parity and Equality mean...

...because if you think they are different then there is not much to talk about.

 

[Lazaran]

.
Creeping Charlie wonders how America can achieve parity and equality without "AK-47" and "Gulag" when the election of Biden and progressive policies are advancing the ball through the constitutional power of the vote and the democratic will of the people.

The irritating weed has been reduced to undisciplined histrionics and violent hyperbole.

Potted plants are really dumb.

 

[CornusKousa]

I suggest you look up what Parity and Equality mean...

...because if you think they are different then there is not much to talk about.

Your article is technically and logically correct, these words do all mean the same thing, but their difference is a matter of application and or concept.

How/where/when is there parity, equity and equality??

Which word used depends on what kind of "equal" you're talking about.

Equity is equality of outcome....this is in direct contradiction of equality of opportunity. Equality is generally the term used for equity of opportunity as opposed to outcome.

Parity is more flexible as it's generally used about proportions but can only be applied to one or the other, not both at the same time.

Which is why we have different words for these different concepts.


For example....if a university can have equal opportunity or equal outcomes it can't have both.

A visual representation of why that is.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shrehan_Lynch/publication/340777978/figure/fig1/AS:882312354988036@1587371066584/The-difference-between-the-terms-equality-equity-and-liberation-illustrated-C_Q640.jpg


Parity can be had on either end but not both at the same time. In a university for example again this would be done by ensuring a proportional number of various races were accepted, so like 4% for Asians, 13% of accepted students would be black and so on. On the flip side you could ensure equal outcomes with parity and graduate the class of perfect equity and parity. But your admission/academic standards are going to have to be wonky as peoples academic performances, resulting in poor or no equal opportunity.


Just to be perfectly clear, despite preferring meritocracy, I have no problem with parity...as long as it's on the equality, not the equity side of things.

 

[AlexBailey]

So how do you get "parity" (equity, NOT equality) without institutionalizing superiority??

And we're back, yet again with the lefty conundrum, how does comrade make equity without AK-47??? Without Gulag???

The constitution. It's that thing you don't understand though you claim to love a few of it's amendments.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


It actually provides the impetus and mechanisms for the government to enforce equal rights under the law. Now it may be true that throughout history some groups have been seen as 'more equal than others', but the power of democracy has changed it to reflect the changing sentiments of society and the majority of the voting public.

 

[CornusKousa]

.
Creeping Charlie wonders how America can achieve parity and equality without "AK-47" and "Gulag" when the election of Biden and progressive policies are advancing the ball through the constitutional power of the vote and the democratic will of the people.

The irritating weed has been reduced to undisciplined histrionics and violent hyperbole.

Potted plants are really dumb.

IMMIDIATELY explains how the feds via the authority of democracy are goin to come force the equity...with guns no matter how fucking much 30ish states and some 150 million Americans hate it. .

That was the "AK-47" and "gulag" I was talking about comrade....

LOL you don't get what you want without putting a federal gun to everyone's head.

 

[AlexBailey]

Your article is technically and logically correct, these words do all mean the same thing, but their difference is a matter of application and or concept.

How/where/when is there parity, equity and equality??

Which word used depends on what kind of "equal" you're talking about.

Equity is equality of outcome....this is in direct contradiction of equality of opportunity. Equality is generally the term used for equity of opportunity as opposed to outcome.

Parity is more flexible as it's generally used about proportions but can only be applied to one or the other, not both at the same time.

Which is why we have different words for these different concepts.


For example....if a university can have equal opportunity or equal outcomes it can't have both.

A visual representation of why that is.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shrehan_Lynch/publication/340777978/figure/fig1/AS:882312354988036@1587371066584/The-difference-between-the-terms-equality-equity-and-liberation-illustrated-C_Q640.jpg


Parity can be had on either end but not both at the same time. In a university for example again this would be done by ensuring a proportional number of various races were accepted, so like 4% for Asians, 13% of accepted students would be black and so on. On the flip side you could ensure equal outcomes with parity and graduate the class of perfect equity and parity. But your admission/academic standards are going to have to be wonky as peoples academic performances, resulting in poor or no equal opportunity.


Just to be perfectly clear, despite preferring meritocracy, I have no problem with parity...as long as it's on the equality, not the equity side of things.

Congratulations, Bobo!

You conveyed a concept without being a troll. I knew you had it in you!

 

[AlexBailey]

IMMIDIATELY explains how the feds via the authority of democracy are goin to come force the equity...with guns no matter how fucking much 30ish states and some 150 million Americans hate it. .

That was the "AK-47" and "gulag" I was talking about comrade....

LOL you don't get what you want without putting a federal gun to everyone's head.

No, that's pretty simplistic and hyperbolic seeing as how America has turned into so much you already hate, while I doubt that anyone from government has put a gun to your head -- at least not since you were discharged from the service.

 

[CornusKousa]

The constitution. It's that thing you don't understand though you claim to love a few of it's amendments.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And how does that create the equity you desire??

It actually provides the impetus and mechanisms for the government to enforce equal rights under the law.

And we done already did that shit a long time ago bubba.

DONE! 14A. the fight is over, if you can make a legit case for unequal rights then I'm sure the SCOTUS would love to hear about it.....and that's not what the "progressive" left is after either.

In fact equality it's downright got them pissed off and trying to repeal those civil rights acts so you can take the white man to task for the sins of his race.

Like absolute fuckin' racist.

No, "progressives" are after social and economic equity.....they want more equal outcomes. Thus all the advocacy for the nationalization of industry, control over the economy and redistribution of wealth.

Now it may be true that throughout history some groups have been seen as 'more equal than others', but the power of democracy has changed it to reflect the changing sentiments of society and the majority of the voting public.

Not enough though. It's been a good push...but I think it was too early and now that it's on full display?? I think you're going to see more and more people back out of Woke-O-haram crazy. Especially after watching the left coast self destruct? LOL Nope.

 

[Lazaran]

Congratulations, Bobo!

You conveyed a concept without being a troll. I knew you had it in you!

There may have been a debatable point in that word salad, but it was so grammatically flawed that only someone who speaks Botanese would be able to respond to it.

*chuckles*

 

[CornusKousa]

Congratulations, Bobo!

You conveyed a concept without being a troll. I knew you had it in you!

Clinical killer....had to put the bullshit down while I had the chance.

No, that's pretty simplistic and hyperbolic seeing as how America has turned into so much you already hate, while I doubt that anyone from government has put a gun to your head -- at least not since you were discharged from the service.

How is it hyperbolic or simplistic??

That's what a law is....a threat of force by the government around certain behaviors and conditions.

If you speed, you get a ticket, if you fuck the ticket off you get a warrant, if you fight the cop who busts your speeding again and tries to take you in for the warrant you're either getting your ass kicked and going to prison or getting killed. Either way the state ends your life. Even for tiny misdemeanors...if you fight the law you're PROBABLY going to get crushed like a bug.

If you didn't need that threat to get the equity you want? You wouldn't need to legislate more equal life outcomes it into federal law

 

[AlexBailey]

Not enough though. It's been a good push...but I think it was too early and now that it's on full display?? I think you're going to see more and more people back out of Woke-O-haram crazy. Especially after watching the left coast self destruct? LOL Nope.

I will amend some of my thoughts after you effectively communicated the difference between equity and parity. The difference is subtle in definition but large in application.

(Real conversation can be good.)

You never did address my Monopoly analogy except to dismiss it as socialism. I was also using it to point out that in most models of capitalism, the losing majority become the voting majority, so it would do well for the 'winners' to give back or they will not like the outcome of democracy.

Since you must at one point have lived in or near Palo Alto you probably couldn't help but understand the pressures on the cost of living caused by high real estate prices in affluent areas. I would suggest that this condition tends to produce voters who are more likely to seek government help. No?

The exodus of some tech business will probably have a downward pressure on real estate values in some areas of california , but it has a long way to fall before a single family home becomes affordable to a typical undergraduate salary.

What do you suppose is going to happen to property prices around the new Tech as it moves into Texas?Want to take any bets on how long it takes for Texas to go blue?

 

[CornusKousa]

I will amend some of my thoughts after you effectively communicated the difference between equity and parity. The difference is subtle in definition but large in application.

(Real conversation can be good.)

Yes.... 100%.

You never did address my Monopoly analogy except to dismiss it as socialism.

I forgot it, you'll have to refresh my memory if you'd like a response now.

I was also using it to point out that in most models of capitalism, the losing majority become the voting majority, so it would do well for the 'winners' to give back or they will not like the outcome of democracy.

Thus all the restrictions we have on our democracy...and if we want to keep our republic and union, we'll keep those chains nice and short. If we intensify or even just persist in our fight to use democracy to bully each other? That's going to lead to some sort of nasty conflict that I just pray to GAWD doesn't get hot.

Since you must at one point have lived in or near Palo Alto you probably couldn't help but understand the pressures on the cost of living caused by high real estate prices in affluent areas. I would suggest that this condition tends to produce voters who are more likely to seek government help. No?

Oh yea, spent several years in the bay area/north coast.

The same government doing rent control and regulating building new housing effectively priced out of existence??? How is the government going to help? The government is the problem....LOL

Can't build new housing, gentrification is racist!! OMG...thank you Oakland LOL they drove the prices through the roof and made me fuckin' rich with that dumb shit.

The exodus of some tech business will probably have a downward pressure on real estate values in some areas of california , but it has a long way to fall before a single family home becomes affordable to a typical undergraduate salary.

Oh yea...in the mean time not only have a few hundred billion bucks in business per year left but tens of thousand of of UBER paid employees? Are all now leaving too. That's just the big dogs...that's totally not accounting for the small business massacre of 2020.

That's going to hurt the state budget....glad I got out when I did.

What do you suppose is going to happen to property prices around the new Tech as it moves into Texas?Want to take any bets on how long it takes for Texas to go blue?

They'll go up some, but nothing compared to CA. Unless they put (D)'s in charge there.

600 g's you can have a fucking mansion sitting on 20 acres outside of Austin, you couldn't get a condemned shit shack in Santa Cruz for that. Put Democrats in charge of Texas in 20 years that thing will cost 280 MILLION dollars!!

Nah, I never doubt the power of stupidity....and they'll destroy Texas just like they did California...and Detroit/Baltimore before that...and on and on.

I'm quasi counting on it happening to Minnesota. If we stay liberal and moderate I get to live a sweet life on the lake. Life is good. If they California the place my home value will skyrocket over the next 10 years and I'll just take the money and go.

I'm good either way.

 

[AlexBailey]

That's what a law is....a threat of force by the government around certain behaviors and conditions.

If you speed, you get a ticket, if you fuck the ticket off you get a warrant, if you fight the cop who busts your speeding again and tries to take you in for the warrant you're either getting your ass kicked and going to prison or getting killed. Either way the state ends your life. Even for tiny misdemeanors...if you fight the law you're PROBABLY going to get crushed like a bug.

If you didn't need that threat to get the equity you want? You wouldn't need to legislate more equal life outcomes it into federal law

Okay, I can see that. Those who live within a society but refuse to adhere to the social contract, whatever that may be, will forcibly lose their rights within that society. In the US, things like driver’s licenses are considered privileges rather than rights. Still enforcement does eventually come down to the gun for those obtuse enough to think their rights supersede those of most of society.

I’ve been told that historically Hawaii, as a very small and close knit society, had a way of dealing with those who would not adhere to the ‘social contract.’ If the ‘bad guy’ was a big enough problem, he would simply disappear and no one would even wonder.

A lot of people who seem share your views wish for a benevolent dictator, but of course the sovereign would have to share all of your views to be acceptable. The only solution to a bad monarchy is... well... let’s just say that democracy is a better alternative, no?

 

[icanhelp1]

Source:
https://newrepublic.com/article/158346/willful-blindness-reactionary-liberalism

Of particular interest is the discussion of free speech and how one(an individual) has free speech and how one does not.

Parity according to The New Republic...it's another word for equality and equity.

"A minority chef who says she wants to be paid as much as her white colleagues has not said that white people are inferior; an unarmed black man under the knee of a policeman and begging for his life is not asking to be conferred a special privilege. The goal is parity, not superiority."

^^^^^^^^

I read most of the article and found an interest point, alarming more like it. Public universities ( not all mind you)should have to respect free speech and diversity of ideas while private institutions don't. We've lost sight of the fact that our educational systems public and private are responsible for promoting diverse ideas, independent thought and freedom of speech as well as respecting diversity of thought. Explains why mob rule exist at U CA Berkeley, where progressive ideology rejects conservative thought, sometimes violently. There shouldn't be any such thing as a minority or majority nor should thought be viewed, accepted or controlled through the prism of liberal thinking and vice versa to include religious institutions. To do so is the equivalence of brainwashing, perpetrating propaganda outlets which in many cases leads to violence.

The constitution is a brilliant piece of work which protects all political persuasions. The constitution protects us from majority domination and tyranny over a minority.

I disagree that parity is the same as equality and equity. To institutionalise parity is the same as classifying all people into the same mold. We are not all equal to each other, we exist within a form of government that grants equal opportunity, freedom of choice and the ability to use our God given talents for personal advancement, to pursue and maintain a quality of life we so choose. If you're not happy with your pay you're free to do something about it, however, if you're doing the same job at the same level of expertise then there's parity, equity of pay.

The article conflates government censorship with media censorship, one's legal the other isn't, however, any censorship if it exist as a majority over a minority is the beginning of fascism. When media refuses to adhere to diversity of reporting, eliminating one while promoting another, well, it leads to what we have today mistrust of the press and the elimination of an unbiased press, a tenet of our republican form of government. IMHO

 

[Lazaran]

.
Creeping Charlie gives a visual example of equality and equity but fails to acknowledge that due to the REALITY of historical INEQUALITY in America propagated by institutional racism and classism, present day society is perfectly justified in "leveling the playing field".

Think about the example picture of equality with the spectators standing on boxes. Now remove the boxes the two smaller individuals were standing on. THAT is the historical REALITY of INEQUALITY

Now Think about the example picture of equity where the two smaller individuals are standing on one or two boxes, while the biggest individual is standing on the ground. Taking into consideration the historical REALITY of INEQUALITY propagated by institutional racism and classism, fairness(justice) dictates that it is reasonable to provide the smaller individuals with one or two boxes in the present to make up for not having a box to stand on in the past.

Only a racist sociopath would argue the point.

 

[CornusKousa]

Okay, I can see that. Those who live within a society but refuse to adhere to the social contract, whatever that may be, will forcibly lose their rights within that society. In the US, things like driver’s licenses are considered privileges rather than rights. Still enforcement does eventually come down to the gun for those obtuse enough to think their rights supersede those of most of society.

I think you understand how hyperbolic pointing to the worlds worst dictators are but they do demonstrate the endgame of authority.

Laws, regardless of all the other stuff you injected here are fundamentally a threat...that's what a law is, a formal declaration of force by the state if you do/don't do xyz.

Doesn't matter your beliefs, or how obtuse they are. if you're caught violating force gets applied. Right??

I’ve been told that historically Hawaii, as a very small and close knit society, had a way of dealing with those who would not adhere to the ‘social contract.’ If the ‘bad guy’ was a big enough problem, he would simply disappear and no one would even wonder.

That's quite the contract.

A lot of people who seem share your views wish for a benevolent dictator, but of course the sovereign would have to share all of your views to be acceptable.

When did liberals start wishing for benevolent dictators?? LOL

I think you have me confused with some sort of authoritarian control freak.....I'm not a "progressive".

The only solution to a bad monarchy is... well... let’s just say that democracy is a better alternative, no?

Only if it's kept from picking up the bad monarchies habits.

Thus the Bill of Rights (which authoritarians both left and right work tirelessly to undermine) is a list of shit the government can't do...shall write no law, shall not be infringed, quarter no soldier etc. is a list of shit the government is not allowed to do.

From banning guns to hate speech...NOPE.

Let freedom ring!!!! In 7.62 millimeter!!!
https://i.imgur.com/P6VKn1H.gif

 

[AlexBailey]

The same government doing rent control and regulating building new housing effectively priced out of existence??? How is the government going to help? The government is the problem....LOL

Can't build new housing, gentrification is racist!! OMG...thank you Oakland LOL they drove the prices through the roof and made me fuckin' rich with that dumb shit.

I've heard that libertarian trope before. It tries to slip past the most basic economic laws of supply and demand. Builders demand permits to put up whatever they can best profit from, demanding that infrastructure be provided by municipalities and the state. Do you honestly discount the challenges in providing water, sewer, power and roads to new construction?

Somewhere in there someone decided that open space and natural features were worth protecting, which further exacerbates the problem. Are those just worthless values that should be ignored? I'm sure there are plenty of capitalists who feel like you do that the guns of fascism are what is keeping them from making more money than they already do.

Affluence and wealth also brings power in the form of money for litigation, so nimbys can keep new construction out of their skyline. Donald Trump is one of the greatest nimbys against building anything that would impact the value of his properties.


Blaming the high cost of California property solely on building regulation is bullshit.


Oh well. I don't get the feeling that you are motivated to think beyond your own intetests. That little tag at the end of your post says as much:

I'm quasi counting on it happening to Minnesota. If we stay liberal and moderate I get to live a sweet life on the lake. Life is good. If they California the place my home value will skyrocket over the next 10 years and I'll just take the money and go.

I'm good either way.

Is that you just being a troll, or do you really just not give a fuck about the rest of America?

 

[CornusKousa]

I've heard that libertarian trope before. It tries to slip past the most basic economic laws of supply and demand. Builders demand permits to put up whatever they can best profit from, demanding that infrastructure be provided by municipalities and the state. Do you honestly discount the challenges in providing water, sewer, power and roads to new construction?

Not at all, but California doesn't even try to make the effort anymore.

Even if you're well connected enough to get the permitting needed building a new home even for personal, much less commercial reasons is next to fucking impossible in that state.

That's a MAJOR problem

Somewhere in there someone decided that open space and natural features were worth protecting, which further exacerbates the problem. Are those just worthless values that should be ignored? I'm sure there are plenty of capitalists who feel like you do that the guns of fascism are what is keeping them from making more money than they already do.

Yea it does.

Not saying they should be ignored or that it was wrong...just that these are actions by the state that have resulted in these consequences.

It's not the guns of fascism trying to destroy the economy, it's the guns of "progress"

Affluence and wealth also brings power in the form of money for litigation, so nimbys can keep new construction out of their skyline. Donald Trump is one of the greatest nimbys against building anything that would impact the value of his properties.

Oh the NorCal NIMBY crowd is the worst. Absolute hypocrites.

Blaming the high cost of California property solely on building regulation is bullshit.

Solely on? Yes...that is bullshit.

But largely? It's not at all bullshit, that's why simply crossing state lines literally to any other state other than HI or NY, your money doubles in value or more.

It's not wrong....
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/95/2a/52/952a52f9541bfa3616cdee4bfec5d447.jpg

Oh well. I don't get the feeling that you are motivated to think beyond your own intetests. That little tag at the end of your post says as much:

Can't save people who have decided to economically blow their brains out to virtue signal how much they care.

Certainly not obligated to join them.

So far Minnesota is practically an uncontrolled libertarian paradise compared to California with enough social liberalism to still have nice schools and decent infrastructure. Let's hope it stays that way.

Is that you just being a troll, or do you really just not give a fuck about the rest of America?

Moving to a more liberal state because "progressives" ruined mine doesn't mean I don't give a fuck about the rest of America.

It means the people of that state have decided to commit economic suicide and I chose not to participate. They deserve what they voted for.

 

[WillJ8787]

Someone needs a reminder....Trump isn't a liberal...chuckles!

 

[CornusKousa]

Someone needs a reminder....Trump isn't a liberal...chuckles!

Too bad the best argument that he isn't is a bunch of leftist stamping their feet screaming "NUH UHH TOTALITARIAN "PROGRES" SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT AT GUNPOINT IS REAL LIBERALISM!!!"

 

[YDB95]

Too bad the best argument that he isn't is a bunch of leftist stamping their feet screaming "NUH UHH TOTALITARIAN "PROGRES" SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT AT GUNPOINT IS REAL LIBERALISM!!!"

And I'm sure you can show us numerous examples of anyone besides yourself actually saying what you have in quotes there...

 

[CornusKousa]

And I'm sure you can show us numerous examples of anyone besides yourself actually saying what you have in quotes there...

Every "progressive" Democrat (authoritarian leftist) claiming to be a liberal is saying exactly that.

Outside of abortion, y'all are pretty much authoritarian control freaks all around.

There isn't a single industry or aspect of ones social life you guys don't want the iron fist of DC in total control of with as many regulations and taxes as can be dreamed up.

And then call yourselves liberal....LOL

 

[YDB95]

Every "progressive" Democrat (authoritarian leftist) claiming to be a liberal is saying exactly that.

Outside of abortion, y'all are pretty much authoritarian control freaks all around.

There isn't a single industry or aspect of ones social life you guys don't want the iron fist of DC in total control of with as many regulations and taxes as can be dreamed up.

And then call yourselves liberal....LOL

So you say again and again and again, with no examples to show for it.