Why the Left's Vision of Equity Is Flawed | Douglas Murray

Tru. The left just fight for minorities to give extremely well paid, confortable, high-paying jobs. Sht jobs? No, those are fine for majorities. Bs.

"I didn't leaave the Left; the Left left me." Every day more people are saying that, coming to their senses, realizing what is happening to our society. Listening to reason not dogma. The Left has become a Cult that insists on obedience to slogans, buzzwords and utter nonsense.

Brilliant

It's ironic how he mentions straw manning and then straw mans "the left" by saying left-leaning people only want diversity in high-status professions as if everyone on the left one day sat together and agreed to that.

Call me sexist but I don't believe that men and women are the exact same and am completely fine with women not wanting to or not being able to do work like brick laying(in my country most women are poor and do other kinds of manual labor like cleaning homes or harvesting crops).

That being said, having people from different parts of the country working with you means that you're exposed to different ideas. Having people from different cultures or parts of the world is no different in my opinion. If you want to live in your bubble and see only people that look like you then you can just stay at home forever.

There is research which indicates that the Left have a mental illness.
We dont need research to witness the madness.

Douglas Murray always explains and debates well. It’s a masterclass of well thought through sentences.

The hypocrisy of the radical left

My argument against the idea of Equity is, that humans in general are not equal. And it's not just the looks, but also the brain, and the way people raised. Some people are smart, others are dumb, some are hard working, others are lazy etc.. Now if someone has some extreme disability, then sure aid that person, but the aid should be in form of social welfare, and not simply giving that person whatever grade, and job (s)he wants. For any job the company should hire whoever is best regardless of everything else, and most companies work like that. At least sensible people won't give a * about the employee's details. Unless, if the job specifically demands a certain gender, or a certain looking person. For example, if you need an actor to play a black character, then it is a sensible request for the actor to be black. But, if you hire a writer for a purely fantasy thing, then that person can have any look. Or if you hire a system administrator, then that person can be any gender, or race, because it is not relevant.

The solution is quite simple. The government should stay the f out of these things. Maybe put it into law, that women cannot be given less for the same job, and work hours, but that is all. For individual scenarios women can sue the company, if they believe, that they are treated unfairly. Otherwise leave it to the corporations who they hire, and why. And if women believe, that they can do better, then they can create their own company at any given time, and hire whoever they want.

Where is the DEI in basketball teams?

White men are very underrepresented.

Racism aka DEI is not right no matter which side is being discriminated against.

Woke Marxists don't care, they love a huge rich powerful Dictatorship, and everyone else equally starving poor, after ransacking and destroying the economy of any country!!😳

That's totally BS. So how about the legacy and donor admissions which NOBODY -from all you you suppose to care about meritocracy .. - says anything .. Are you kidding me ?
How legacy and donor admissions to elite universities are compatible with meritocracy,,,.......??? Anyone is wiling to explain ?

''Meritocracy is that nothing should hold you back if you have the capabilities to fulfil your goals. So if you have the capacity to be on the board of a company you shouldn't not be on the board because you're gay or because you're a woman or because you're from an ethnic minority.''
How very simplistic. The big problem with that concept is that there may very well be something about being gay ( or, rather, indulging in sexual perversion) that will affect a homosexual's performance in that particular work.

Another thing to consider is that the US government used to ban homosexuals from working in certain roles due to what was perceived to be certain character defects. Homosexuals, particularly male 'gays', had characteristics such as unreliability and predatory behaviour.
The following is an extract from, The Senate Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments (and) directed, under authority of Senate Resolution 280

December 15 , 1950
EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS AND OTHER SEX PERVERTS IN GOVERNMENT
INTERIM REPORT

''Those charged with the responsibility of operating the agencies of Government must insist that Government employees meet acceptable standards of personal conduct. In further considering, the general suitability of perverts as Government employees, it is generally believed that those who engage in acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons. There is an abundance of evidence to sustain the conclusion that acts of sex perversion weakens the moral fiber of an individual to a degree that he is not suitable for a position of responsibility.

Most of the authorities agree and our investigation has shown that the presence of a sex pervert in a Government agency tends to have a corrosive influence upon his fellow employees. These perverts will frequently attempt to entice normal individuals to engage in perverted practices. This is particularly true in the case of young and impressionable people who might come under the influence of a pervert. Government officials have the responsibility of keeping this type of corrosive influence out of the agencies under their control. It is particularly important that the thousands of young men and women who are brought into Federal jobs not be subjected to that type of influence while in the service of the Government. One homosexual can pollute a Government office.''

Only conservatives think their own voters are so stupid (and are probably right to do so) that they think they need to state they've "debunk" a vague political cartoon. Shit is ridiculous. and yet they fucking love it. 😂 Not even Karl Marx would have argued that every single person should be treated in exactly the same way in every given circumstance. It's the dumbest strawman ever, and yet I bet if you asked most people on the right they'd probably say that what anyone with idk multicoloured hair or whatever thinks.

Equality in left wing politics just mean the intention to treat people fairly. The fact someone even went to the extent to create a pretty picture to explain it as equity so might understand yet you lot still don't get it is hilarious. Mostly because half of you genuinely don't get it and the other half are just pretending not to do so because they actively want to continue persecuting people, which means having to argue against fairness which they won't because they are too insecure to risk looking that silly.

Let’s face it, if the most qualified person for a job happens to be of DEI status without a DEI checkbox in place who really isn’t going to hire them if they are the best fit?

This guy is too smart for most leftist to understand.

I think we need a lot more basketball players who are under 6 ft tall and who aren't black. Now that would be equitable.

Spot on, from start to finish

Where do Amaleks and their children fall on the meritocracy scale?

As a "leftest", I mostly agree. What is missed is that historically certain groups have been purposely excluded from jobs and positions. An equally - or even perhaps better - qualified person would not be hired/placed if they were black or a woman or jewish or latino, etc. This is the root of the issue. It is true that in trying to solve this issue, the left pushes unqualified folks into positions and plays identity politics.

Particularly at higher levels and even in college admittance perhaps until recently, there was no path forward to give the same advantage to certain groups and certainly those of lessor economic means. There will be always a few who will be able to push through but it is far from the norm. Women have a zillion stories and examples of how they were barred from advancing simply because they are women.

The left's "preoccupation" with identity based reform is not effective, is a flawed answer and has produced a huge backlash. However, Murray is correct in stating that the right has no formula or plan to achieve real equality -- all it does is bash what the left is trying to do -- which for all its flaws is at least trying (and has somewhat) to change the inequality of the status quo.

I frankly do nOt give a fffk about the “poor women”, who earns several thousands or millions of dollars less than a male… I’m concerned more about the +90% of women who don’t earn equally to her male workers for “exactly” the same job/skill set…
BtB being a ceo is not a skill set, it is a skill of a charlatan delegating others… Even his/her fffk up, will get rewarded, while the skilled people get fired…

Are there goals in life which would be incompatible with certain features one might be born with? How about a homosexual who wishes to be come a priest in a Christian church? How about a woman who wishes to be a man? How about a person of an ethnic minority who wishes to be accepted by members of the majority?

It seems to me, that before we can have a discussion about the morals of our free society, we have to have a discussion about the realities of life, first.

Once we all agree that the circumstances of our birth are beyond our control and that life is inherently unfair, then we can begin to understand what responsibilities each of us have towards one another.

One thing I think should be clear is that we shouldn't be responsible for fixing the problems other people were born with. It's up to each of us as individuals to find a way to deal with our personal burdens.

In my opinion, this concept has to be the starting morality for any civilization built upon the concept of freedom.

How painful for her to just read out her (?) report.
Is this the best English-speaking journalist you could find in Italy?

Opening point: Nobody should be held back from what they can attain...by... characteristics they can't control.

Tolerance dropped in the last 4 years because governments pushed the wedge of intolerance between vax and unvax. It was deliberate. Now here we are.

You do have say over your religion and beliefs. So his definition is incomplete. You shouldn't be held back because of either, in general.

However, in some cases, you should be held back because of your beliefs if your beliefs harm society.

I agree with Douglas Murray and he frames his point of view fairly and clearly. His comments on Hollywood are both instructive and hilarious.

The lefts vision of just about anything ends up being flawed. When you only look ahead to winning the next election at all costs, you have no plan to succeed as leaders.

When you see that boxes depiction of equity…the question to ask is, who gets to determine the height of the boxes? 🤔

Yes...."The Right" needs to go on offense. No need to apologize for what we believe. We're called "the right" for a reason 😉

Nobody is prioritizing more women in prison.

This was not steelmanning the argument. It was quick and engaging, but kind of a poor representation of the argument on both sides.

The left position envisions opportunity as a perpetually run race where some people always have an edge, and I don't think Murray takes that far enough. If you live in a neighborhood with better schools, for example, you have an unjust edge over someone who doesn't. If you have parents with professional experience, who teach you to effectively be successful, then you have an unfair advantage. I've been to a lecture where a woman said that pollution was responsible for a double digit percentage of differing outcomes between rich and poor, and that it wasn't just schools, but everything from bad local soil quality to traffic noise in the ghetto could pull students down.

I should hope that, by this point, the left has abandoned the idea that people have basically equal ability at birth and only social convention and material depravation make them unequal, but some still hold fast to that. It's an argument that runs deep into how societies reinforce their value system, which can easily be turned into a systematic self-preservation by elites, those who are at the top staying there by saying the traits and actions that earn them their power - like productivity - are valuable. If you don't subscribe to that value system, it can look like circular reasoning.

It's probably always going to be easy to demonstrate that having a less prosperous environment and less supportive family life growing up can hurt your outcomes, and thus, it will always be impossible to really maintain the idea that we're doing everything we can. Gradualism has just been taken as resistance, and ultimately, the left ends up having to choose between two ideas for assaulting the order.

On the one side, there's merit, which can never be made completely equal, and thus will always look false even if you agree with the productivity basis for inequality. If you want to go as far as possible with it, you take children from their families and raise them in state run, equal-as-possible facilities where no one has advantages or disadvantages. That seems unlikely to work, not to mention being politically infeasible.

On the other side, there's enforced social equity that follows the dictum of Marx: from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. This is more likely to be a goal, because it allows for fundamental disrespect towards those that are productive or in high position, which the left loves. Those productive people are all just lucky, and that luck can be evened out by saying everyone is equally worthy of their needs being met in an act of social solidarity. Those that work harder are just doing what their upbringing primed them to do, and having them gain more of anything for following their fate just becomes seen as gauche and greedy.

This is ultimately an attack on all social hierarchy, not an attack on the merit of those in the higher positions. It's a longstanding far left idea, and I expect that messaging to become more popular in this generation.

Meritocracy is not the opposite of Equity. And Meritocracy is not the same thing as Equality. And there
is no guarantee that your merits will be recognized and rewarded either. And yet Equality is opposite in
meaning to Equity. So the first question is, what is Equality?! Equality is the recognition of the fact that
we are all born with inalienable individual rights. We all have an Equality of Rights. We all have .... equal
rights. And it is this which stands in opposition to Equity ... and not Meritocracy. Equity therefore, is at
the outset, a violation of rights and not a violation of merit. Equity is not an opposition to merit but an
opposition to rights. Contrasting Equity with Meritocracy is therefore an argument by non-essentials.
Meritocracy is not a fundamental but a consequence of Equality and its not automatic. You win some
you loose some. But you do not loose your rights.

In logic, merit only comes into play under an Equality of Rights. Equity does not give rise to merit ... it
denies merit. And merit does not give rise to rights. That means only an Equality of Rights is left to give
rise to merit, if at all. There is no guarantee that your merits will be recognized and rewarded but only
that your rights will be recognized and not violated. An Equality of Rights makes meritocracy possible.
Meritocracy is therefore not the fundamental. An Equality or Rights is the fundamental. And now we see
that the opposite of an Equality of Rights is ... EQUITY. Equality is the opposite of Equity. Rights is the
opposite of Equity. And finally: Equity is the violation of rights and not a violation of merit. The Marxist
propaganda dare's not name their real target: the violation of your rights, so they pick on 'Meritocracy's
Trojan Horse. And Douglas Murray has swallowed it whole. Equality, in fundamentals terms, it comes
down to inalienable individual rights. Douglas Murray fails to see thru Marxist propaganda.

*Equity is a wholesale attack on Equality and thus an attack on Rights.* It never was an attack on so
called Meritocracy. *The real battle line is .... Rights vs Equity.* The Marxists have blurred that line. And
our Man Douglas is unwittingly helping the Marxists maintain that blurred line.

Trump/Rand 2024

Gina Carano

In the political cartoon on the thumbnail, I always wondered why the three of them didn't just pay for tickets like everyone else and get real seats? Maybe pay their own way like everyone else instead of stealing? Isn't THAT equality?

Define tolerance.

All three are stealing instead of buying a ticket; quite fitting for evil leftist ideologies wherein the weak get to enslave the strong on virtue of being weak.

What he is offering is the idea of Leadership. Not being a Boss. It's an important distinction and requires sacrifice and faith in order to execute effectively. Accountability, integrity and consistency.

Re the thumbnail - these people should get a job and pay to see the game like the rest of us.

"Acedia" is the word the subtitles mangled.

Speaking of straw man arguments... Recognizing an indicator of prejudice and making what should be corrective action is in no way shape or form a bad thing because some fanatics in some places have hijacked the good intentions for their own extremist and nefarious goals. One thing that strikes me as odd is that this speech for the National Review infers (but doesn't outright say) that corrective action against the effects of prejudice is not just done by extremists but leftists (as in the right does not approve of such things). There are plenty of right wing people who do support all sorts of supremist ideologies. If you consider yourself right wing and you believe discrimination against gender, skin color, religion and sexual orientation is evil and not good you need to be speaking up and countering what places like the National Review are saying or people will rightly consider the right wing as being a haven for supremacists.

can barely herar the audio

The wrinkles in that backdrop are driving me nuts.

The focus on high status jobs is right on target. Where is the outrage that women are not equally represented in the auto repair trade? However, this equity emphasis is a great idea! My boyhood dream was to be a major league baseball player. Problem is I was slow, unskilled and had a problem hitting fastballs, and now I'm old which makes it even worse. In the name of equity I demand that baseball teams be required to set aside a certain percentage of positiions for those of us who are old, slow and unskilled!

Very incomplete address! And confusing!

No, the picture is an accurate depiction of the situation, Some do not want to accept that reality but it remains true ,

Something that’s never said is that what he says about conservatives only caring about merit is either false or, if true, it is so thanks to the push coming from liberals in recent years. He mentions gay people, and gays were treated as second class in the very recent past. Conservatives didn’t want a gay man to teach school kids. I still hear conservative people questioning whether a gay man can lead Apple. Most conservatives say they wouldn’t vote for an atheist president.
So maybe if they want to be taken seriously they should acknowledge their recent past mistakes and truly prove that it’s truly just merit they care about.

So, read any good books BACKWARDS lately? Were Adam and Eve REALLY first?🤪👿✝️

The word 'trinity' is NOT found in the Bible. It was a fairy tale made up by the Council of Nicea around the year 300 AD, LOOOONG after the Bible was already finished.

Do you think MOSES had the trinity in mind while he was writing the book of Genesis?!? LOL! The trinity wasn't invented until THOUSANDS of years after Genesis was written.

If you think that nonsense made up in the year 300 AD had some influence on what MOSES was writing, then you're too STUPID TO BE HELPED.... 🤘👿✝️