Why YSK: because what seems like equal situation from surface isn’t always equal opportunity for all. And even when equal measure of help is provided, it might not be equally useful.

  • fiat_lux
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    Only if you consider no tools or assistance to qualify as “having tools or assistance”. So no, because while you’re correct that 0 == 0, you need values of greater than 0 to have something.

    • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      I did consider no tools on both sides to be equal tools.

      Can you maybe eli5 why there is a need to have something in this example?
      I just don’t get any real difference from the first two panels.

      The exact same circumstances that punish the one kid in the first panel still punish them in the second. If anything they are worse off in comparison since the additional provided tools don’t serve any purpose for them but do help the other kid.

      • fiat_lux
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yep, so the point (I think) is to get you to contrast equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. It’s not hugely clear in the images, there are a few things that need to be assumed to make it clearer.

        Firstly the goal is not 1 fruit, the goal is to have a many fruit as you need. For some reason these 2 kids both need a lot of fruit. Maybe they have huge seeds and 1 won’t sustain a small child, I don’t know.

        Secondly, the tree in the first panel has fewer fruit to drop on one side, and it leans towards one person only. This is trying to communicate that they don’t have equality of opportunity on a systemic level. Both children have 1 significant barrier (height), but 1 child has an additional barrier of fewer fruit possible, and their height barrier is twice as tall. There is also an invisible forcefield preventing movement of children from one side of the tree to the other.

        So in the first panel, yes it is unequal because one kid gets nothing and the other gets something, which is an inequality of outcome. The difference in tree lean and number of fruit provides an inequality of opportunity - which is often harder to see in real life too.

        The second panel asks the question “what if we gave them equal assistance?” by providing equal ladders. Which is great, but if the assistance provided is only enough to help one child overcome the problem they both face while ignoring the other 2 problems the other child faces, you won’t have equality of outcome. And it can even cause greater inequality of outcome, because the left kid can reach a dozen fruit but the right kid can still only reach a few. For magic forcefield reasons.

        The third panel is different to the second, because they’re no longer only being provided equal assistance. They’re both being provided assistance equal to their needs, but the kid on the right still has fewer opportunities because there are fewer fruit. They have more equal possible outcomes, but it’s still unlikely to be an equal outcome even though you’re (sort of) helping one kid twice as much.

        And in the last panel, for some reason trees that are straight provide equal quantities of fruit on both sides? Whatever, the point us that the underlying systemic inequity has been addressed and you have proper equality of opportunity and potential for equality of outcome.

        Sorry about length, I hope that reply doesn’t cause more confusion.

        • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Thank you for taking the time.

          I think I get now what panel 2 wants to tell me.
          I still think it would make the same point (or a similar one) more clearly if the left child had a ladder from start on.

          Then you could see that just equalizing the tools is not enough.
          Here I think it looks as if giving tools is worthless to even harmful, which I don’t agree with.

          But again thank you for writing it up, it was well written and very good to understand for me as a non native speaker.

          • fiat_lux
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            Glad to be of use! It’s a pretty nuanced area of English, so I can understand how being a non-native speaker would make it even more difficult.

            I think the reason they decided on the tree lean/fruit quantity was to try to contrast inequality stemming from historical reasons with inequality stemming from no assistance being provided in that moment. Actively withholding needed resources can have the same effect as a system providing unequal resources over time, even if the historical reasons for that inequality weren’t decisions anybody alive today is responsible for.

      • DessertStorms
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I did consider no tools on both sides to be equal tools.

        only if both people have the same starting point, but they don’t (in the illustration they don’t because the tree gives more fruit on one side, in reality this translates in to privilege, or lack thereof - a white person has more “fruit” and “tools” available to them than a Black person. An abled person has more “fruit” and “tools” available to them than a disabled person, and so on).

        The exact same circumstances that punish the one kid in the first panel still punish them in the second. If anything they are worse off in comparison since the additional provided tools don’t serve any purpose for them but do help the other kid.

        That’s the point - merely providing superficial assistance or tools or whatever, without changing the core of the problem (here - the fact that the tree leans only to one side) doesn’t solve anything.

        So providing a ramp to a building might help wheelchair users (but probably not a Blind or Deaf person for example) very superficially to access that one building, but it doesn’t change all the other inaccessible buildings, or the accessibility issues faced by the Blind or Deaf person (or whatever other disability that doesn’t require the use of a wheelchair), nor the system that sees disabled people as reasonable to exclude because we take “too much” work to cater to (which is a core and very real example of systemic ableism).

        Edit just to add: the one main flaw I find with this illustration vs the one with the boxes (here is my personal favourite example), where the obstacle is man made, is that the tree, ie the system, is made to look natural, when in reality it is anything but.
        Capitalism (the core system that is the tree, and it’s branches are racism, sexism, ableism, queerphobias and so on) has done a fantastic job convincing society of the lie that humans are naturally greedy and selfish, and of “social Darwinism” and all that eugenicist crap, when in reality humans are hardwired to work together.