Hacker News Reader

> an inequality of outcome, on the basis of race or sex is the best indicator one would have of an inequality of opportunity.

It's good if you use it as an indicator, but it's currently used as "evidence" and as a justification to give certain advantages to certain groups under the (almost always unproven) assumption that there's inequality of opportunity. For example: quota laws, and affirmative action in general. Quota laws and affirmative action that are notably pushed by progressive mob that I talk about, so I don't see the mischaracterization.

Inequality "of outcome" is the best evidence one can have of inequality "of opportunity", and again, it was the primary evidence in the Brown v. Board of Education overturn of Plessy v. Ferguson.

The distinction didn't hold water in 1954, and I don't think it holds water in 2020. Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle evidence that there is inequality "of opportunity."

> Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle evidence that there is inequality "of opportunity."

How so?

definitions: equality of opportunity = x equality of outcome = y

equation: y = f(x, [z1, z2, ...]) where z1, z2, ... are possibly other factors determining y

you seem to say that y = f(x)

You need to prove that z1, z2, ... don't exist and that y = f(x) has a causal relationship

Both can be proved or disproved through numbers. In case the numbers don't exist, one suspends judgement.

> Historically, in feminist, anti-colonial, and anti-racist circles, an inequality of outcome, on the basis of race or sex is the best indicator one would have of an inequality of opportunity.

It's only reasonable to expect equality of outcomes if everything else is the same. If people in different groups still have different parental income levels or cultural norms or diets or religious beliefs or a thousand other things then you wouldn't expect the same outcomes, even if both groups have the same opportunities, because their treatment isn't the only statistical difference between them.

> Those that hold that certain races or sexes are inferior conclude that these inequalities are due to the natural, inherent superiority of men/whites/westerners/etc rather than an inequality of opportunity. It doesn't take being in the so-called "progressive mob" to reject that line of reasoning.

It doesn't take accepting that it's due to inequality of opportunity to reject it either.

If you have two kids and they had the same opportunities but one became an engineer and the other a janitor, it doesn't have to be genetics, it could be that one had parents who encouraged them to become an engineer and the other didn't.

> This "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" discussion is a mischaracterization of the position of "the progressive mob" that is misguided at best, dishonest at worst.

It's also misrepresenting Mill, who surely did not argue against the desirability of equal outcomes. He was simply writing in a different environment, where giant glaring differences of opportunity made for easier argument and lower hanging fruit.

I don't see how you get from "Women must have access to the same professions as men" to a person who necessarily agrees with "It's not a problem if chicks aren't paid as much as dudes, there are all these other factors".

Can we have some numbers here?