The attack on CRT is just the start

Question.

How equitable was the industrial era of Victorian London?

I think you're mistaken there.

How the fuck should I know, and what does it matter?

Seems like you're taking it personally because it happens to be a society that includes you.

Would you say the same thing about an analysis of South Africa in the 70's? Or an analysis of a communist country?

Do you seriously think unconscious bias isn't a real thing? Or do you object because the implication makes you personally uncomfortable?

I am not mistaken. I have been using the word “equity” for more than 25 years working with data and evaluating difference in every kind of data. Morons on YouTube, who lived in their parents basements until they discovered saying “hit like and subscribe” will get them everything they couldn’t be arsed to get out and actually work for, and insist it means something else, are exactly the kind of people they and you rant against. In their case, it’s clearly projection. Stick with Bill Burr and Henry and Jeanie and turn that other crap off.

So let's boil it down.
UA's position is that the world has to be a seething hellhole of starvation death and medical bankruptcy because somewhere someone might be lazy on his dime.
Y'know who's guaranteed to be lazy on your dime, UA?
Kids of billionaires who dodge their taxes.
And slashing welfare doesn't touch them.

This is why you don't make a philosophy that fits on a bumper sticker, and then be a rigid dogmatist over it.
It causes these little things called disasters.

Now I suspect you are not familiar with this particular usage.

Nothing prevents you from organizing amongst yourselves to fund any program you want under terms of free association. But that doesn't grant you power over others, so the option is rejected.

Me- You're a rigid dogmatist.

UA- *Doubles down on rigid dogmatism*


Yeah, you suuuuuure showed me!

Because the principles upon which it operated were very similar to how you describe an ideal society.

No. I think crybaby podcasters, who never worked for anything, and are upset because they have nothing, spread lies and propaganda for the sole intent of getting something for nothing, are attempting to convince people that the "usage" means something that it doesn't. But, as long as they have people who "hit like and subscribe" to their bullshit, they will say whatever stupid shit sells their podcast.

I actually only just saw this after replying about Victorian London.

Ironically exactly what you propose happened. Unpaid debts resulted in imprisonment. Children born out of wedlock or to those unable to feed them were taken to orphanages run by groups of middle class philanthropists who represented the nearest thing to safety nets but in practise were often merely slavers and/or child abusers given license.

Homelessness and prostitution were at record highs despite economic prosperity, disease was rampant, crime essentially unchecked. Life expectancy and education levels plummeted, healthcare was largely non existent unless you were rich or able to find charitable organisations which typically required a religious conversion.

It was a combination of compassionate socialism and the need to have a conscript worthy population for war which changed matters.

"A Christmas Carol" is pretty good until those Commie pinko ghosts show up and ruin everything.

You jest, I think, but that was very much what Dickens had in mind.

You just lay off those poor podcasters, you big bully.

Let's try some google search definitions:

So, exactly what I have been saying, just couched in friendlier terms. It's equality of outcome, regardless of merit, rationalized and justified by the presumption of disadvantage. This is not a lie, nor is it propaganda, it is a very clear agenda that refuses to openly state how it should look in execution. That is to say, that delightful old Marxist bumper sticker slogan: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." It's not by accident that it makes no mention of free will. Equity, in this context, is the explicit goal of seizing power over others.

I say protecting people from themselves has not made for a better human race. Just a better surviving one, a more comfortable one. NOT the same thing

The more people survive, the more chances someone's grandkid cures cancer, or cracks warp drive.

What would be the criteria for better?

The whole of human (pre) history has been a very bumpy road towards trying (sometimes failing) to make life less brutish, cruel, unforgiving, short, violent.

You could very reasonably argue we've made things worse on those measures in certain places and at certain times but by and large that comes down to us being fundamentally selfish, short sighted, well, brutes.

What measure would you use and how much progress have we made?

Or a serial killer. Or a useless deadbeat addict, shitting in a bucket behind Denny's. Or just your average tax-paying consumer drone who gorges on debt and votes according to whatever cable news show they like to yell at tells them. If you're looking for the benefit of the doubt, with regard to being forced to invest in people, you are barking up the wrong PVC xmas tree.

How many people can the average serial killer wipe out?
About 5-14?
How many would a cancer cure save?
About half million a year?
Seems like a fair trade.

That's entirely subjective.

I personally would elevate skills that reinforce self-reliance, and instill values that prioritize avoiding personal habits that harm, endanger, impose on or inconvenience others.

Public schools, for example, would go a long way towards earning my willing support if they actually taught students how to function as productive members of society and did not graduate them until they could demonstrate that ability. Maintain a home, fix a car, grow a garden, responsibly manage personal finances, and at least one skilled, wage-earning trade. If they are not helpless, useless and unemployable when they reach adulthood, they might actually make a case for a more comfortable "living wage."

If you could even offer favorable odds that it would happen. Mine is a guaranteed lock.

Very few get to five these days unless they go on a spree.

Goddamn tax payer funded law enforcement on the gravy train with their labs making their jobs easier and taking the challenge of survival away for the rest of us.

Bill Gates can't do any of that shit, and here you sit and type on one of his machines.
How do I know you aren't using an Apple?
Cuz Apple shit is overpriced, and you strike me as a penny-pincher.

Also because apple is marketed to pretentious douchenozzles.

Can't even get behind preparing people to fend for themselves. Fuck's sake.

So much better that they all grow up on the fantasy that they'll definitely be millionaire musicians/athletes/actors/models/artists/podcasters/etc. who don't need no schoolin'. That's working out really well.

Yep, no one did the work, and the economy imploded, and every one died, and we're ghosts now.
I don't know what was worse about dying, the pain in my starving belly, or how sad it made me.
How 'bout you?

I'm here in the real world where people actually do suffer for the lack of preparedness. Ignorant, slack-jawed dropout drains on society producing litters of ignorant, slack-jawed dropout drains on society.

But at least they'll get free health care. Yay!

It's always the poor, and never the billionaires who take it and don't need it.
Boy, they've got you brainwashed really good.

*Flashback to the 80's*

Reagan- Wheeelll!! Whheeelll!! Welfare queens!! Wheeeelll!!

*A model in a bikini holds up a bottle of Coke*

Jingle singers- Hate the poor, and hate the blacks! But leave our taxes alooooone!!!

Little UA- Boy, I sure will, bikini lady!

False.

That was easy.