YSK The difference between equality, justice and equity.

SoNick , 10 months ago

I like the boxes and fence one more, this just feels super-contrived

HonoraryMancunian , 10 months ago

But that one always brings out the smug responses about how they shouldn’t be watching the game for free, totally (and purposefully) missing the point

nxfsi , 10 months ago

My favorite is the meme edit where they just chop off everyone’s legs so that they end up at the same height below the fence.

Klear , 10 months ago

Fatality!

Decoy321 , 10 months ago

True justice would be them watering the tree or something. That dude has been giving to these little shits the whole time. Let it be The Getting Tree for once.

upforitbutnotdownforit , 10 months ago

I like owning a home because I finally got some equality.

MeatsOfRage , 10 months ago

The girl could literally just walk to the other side of the tree, there’s no actual barrier. This one is super ham-fisted because it can spark the wrong side of the debate.

DessertStorms , 10 months ago

it can spark the wrong side of the debate.

any discussion of the topic would though, because those who oppose the basic idea of equality, let alone equity or justice, know only how to derail and/or project, they are not interested in having a sincere discussion, because they whole heartedly believe that some people are worth less than others, and they will justify that in whatever way makes sense to them because in their mind, they're all that matters.

mex , 10 months ago

Equality is letting anyone gather apples on any side of the tree.

Amilo159 OP , 10 months ago

Yet sometimes you can’t choose where you come from or where you stand. Even if you let people stand where they want, some have larger hands or are taller and stronger so can gather more apples.

whats_a_refoogee , 10 months ago

I don’t see a fence…

Maybe the real point of the comic is that the girl on the right is really stupid, so we should tilt the tree instead of having her lazy ass move the ladder.

toastus , 10 months ago

Doesn’t the first panel also have equal tools and assistance?

Amilo159 OP , 10 months ago

No since the tree is leaning to one side, so more apples will fall that way.

Whirlwindwanderer , 10 months ago

What stops the other person from choosing a different spot…

VikingHippie , 10 months ago

Myriad factors, many of which are out of their control. The illustration could have added fences and other barriers, but that would have sacrificed clarity for unnecessary accuracy.

pjhenry1216 , 10 months ago

I don't know. What stops you from living in any house you want?

Whirlwindwanderer , 10 months ago

Nothing equivalent of that is depicted.

pjhenry1216 , 10 months ago

Clearly they are restricted to their own property. It's unambiguously implied. So property ownership is at least somewhat depicted. Maybe they don't own the side of the tree, but clearly they aren't allowed on each others. Plus, there's the whole thing about how analogies work. They all break apart if you stretch them beyond their point. Might as well just ask why equality isn't just burning the tree down. It's as nonsensical as your question and just as valuable to discuss.

Surreal , 10 months ago

The image needs better ideas. Maybe make the right kid has broken legs so that kid could not freely move to the correct spot

Amilo159 OP , 10 months ago

The tree is a metaphor. In reality it could be job market, one being man and other a woman applying for jobs that traditionally want/prefer men to work.

Or any number of things.

toastus , 10 months ago

I didn’t think the tree was either a tool or assistance.
Especially since it is still the same in the second panel where tools or assistance are supposed to be equal.

But I am not good at those things. I just don’t seem to get it.

Amilo159 OP , 10 months ago

Tree is the situation, that is benefiting one person more than other.

Equality means you provide equal help to all and expect them to be equally benefitted. Sometimes that doesn’t work.

Perfect example would be a Spaniard and Frenchman learning a new language, say Italian. This would be easy for a Spanish person because Italian is similar to Spanish. Not so much for French. Providing them both with 10 hours of language classes will be equality but results won’t be equal.

toastus , 10 months ago

Yeah thank you.

The part that I still don’t quite get is why giving both people 10 hours of classes is equality but giving both 0 hours of lessons isn’t.
(Or giving both kids 1 ladder vs. giving both kids 0 ladders.)

I get that the analogy to a real situation would be to just let inequality run its course and that is obviously not the same as giving everyone the same assistance. I still don’t think the picture makes this point very well.

whats_a_refoogee , 10 months ago

You said the quiet part out loud. “Equally benefitted” is another way to describe equity.

Providing them both with 10 hours of language classes will be equality but results won’t be equal.

Again, you’re just arguing for equity and against equality. Equality and equity are fundamentally incompatible, since achieving equity requires unequal treatment. Presumably your example ends with the Italian person getting more than 10 hours of lessons because of his nationality. You seriously need to acknowledge that you’re advocating for one person to receive better treatment because of their nationality, and consider the consequences of that being an acceptable practice. You’re trying to reverse over a century of human civilisation’s progress.

VikingHippie , 10 months ago

No. The system leaning in favor of one group is very much a type of assistance.

toastus , 10 months ago

Wouldn’t then in the second panel still not be equal assistance?

VikingHippie , 10 months ago

No. “Except for the basics of the system itself” is implied.

toastus , 10 months ago

I really don’t mean to be contrarian but I simply don’t understand how a leaning tree can be assistance in panel 1 but not in panel 2.

VikingHippie , 10 months ago

I really don’t mean to be a contrarian

I’m not sure I believe that, but I’m gonna continue to give you the benefit of doubt for a bit more.

The assistance being alluded to is assistance on top of the system to correct the negative effects of the system.

The vast majority of the reasons any group of people is marginalised at all are systemic and stem from powerful people in the past (and, to a much lesser but still abhorrent degree, the present) writing the rules to give themselves and other people like them advantageous conditions compared to others.

toastus , 10 months ago

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt I guess.

I think I will stay at my own conclusion that this picture doesn’t do a good job of pointing out the differences between the panels.

They could just as easily have given the left child the ladder from panel 1 on. That would show that just equalizing the tools and assistance doesn’t create real justice in a flawed system.
I am not convinced that starting with no tools and assistance (aside from the tree that somehow is assistance in panel 1 and isn’t in panel 2) and then giving them both the same ladder makes that point very well.

But maybe I still just don’t quite get it.

Kecessa , 10 months ago

The leaning tree represents things that are unintentional, the tree just grew like that, it wasn’t on purpose.

The second panel represents intentional assistance, it was given to them on purpose.

DessertStorms , 10 months ago

It is assistance in both, but the point is that "equal" assistance in an unequal world (the tree still leaning one way) doesn't actually provide justice, since those the tree is leaning towards still benefit more, even when the others have "extra" assistance.

SaakoPaahtaa , 10 months ago

The kid can literally walk 3 meters to the other side doe

VikingHippie , 10 months ago

Do you know what an analogy is?

SaakoPaahtaa , 10 months ago

Yes and I can even see if theyre any good or not. This one is pretty weak analogy since the kid can walk to the other side. Its not the trees fault its a bit askew

VikingHippie , 10 months ago

As I explained in another reply, the illustration could have added fences and other barriers, but that would have sacrificed clarity for a degree of accuracy only necessary for pedants like yourself.

And yes, it ABSOLUTELY is the fault of the system and those in charge of shaping it if it’s crooked and nothing is done to straighten it out or at the very least compensate for the disparity.

I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or just genuinely obtuse, but I’m leaning more and more towards believing the former.

SaakoPaahtaa , 10 months ago

Having barriers would be unequal, sure. But my brother, trees just grow last time I asked they said they dont really give a shit what a couple of hungry kids think of it.

VikingHippie , 10 months ago

OK, definitely either the former or both so I’m gonna stop trying to explain the obvious to you. Have the day you deserve.

SaakoPaahtaa , 10 months ago

Thanks boi having a pumper day currently😎

whats_a_refoogee , 10 months ago

No, it would have added clarity because it would show that the kid on the right is prevented from going to the left side, which is a necessary assumption for the given metaphor to work.

However, that would make it obvious what the real problem and the solution is. Which would be detrimental to the political message the comic is trying to push, because then instead of giving assistance (putting up boards to move the tree), the obvious solution would be removing something (the literal and metaphorical barrier). The author clearly intended to show that providing assistance is justice, not removing barriers.

It’s a disingenuous comic, because equity and “justice”, while appearing differently in the comic, in practice would be exactly the same thing.

Besides, anyone portraying their position as “justice” is a massive red flag.

VikingHippie , 10 months ago

There are myriad rules and individuals keeping that tree crooked while erecting barriers both visible and invisible. Removing official barriers doesn’t remove the unofficial ones. The only way that those can can be overcome without infringing on anyone’s rights is by empowering the disempowered to be able to scale them.

Also, maybe not the best idea to bring up red flags when your username heavily implies xenophobia and a complete lack of respect for international law…

Kecessa , 10 months ago

It represents unintentional assistance though, not a bias that exists on purpose. Ex: old building entrance is higher than sidewalk, there’s stairs to go up, it wasn’t the intention to cut access to the disabled, it’s a consequence of the default choice.

VikingHippie , 10 months ago

Some of it IS intentional, though, or (as in your own example) lack of intentionality from another time with a lot less attention being paid to equal access for people outside of the “standard human” powerful people had in mind when building structures both physical and societal.

There being a default at all is a form of discrimination and harm against the people that it disadvantages, whether or not it’s intentional.

Kecessa , 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

The inequality wasn’t intentional, people didn’t put stairs so disabled wouldn’t have access, they put stairs because that’s what you do when you want people to go up and it had that unintended effect.

The tree didn’t grow leaning on one side so the kid on the wrong side wouldn’t get apples, it grew like that because nature made it.

Giving them ladders was intentional, building a ramp too narrow for wheelchairs that’s intentional… And that’s the difference between panel 1 and 2, they don’t have tools that are supposed to help them at first, then they are given a tool and they’re inappropriate for one of them.

uniqueid198x , 10 months ago

Even if the inequality is completely accidental, shouldn’t we do something about it? Like, we don’t have to make everyone millionares, but if the system accidently makes some people suffer, shouldn’t we try to change that?

Kecessa , 10 months ago

Never said nothing should be done about it, just pointing out that there’s in fact a difference between panel 1 and panel 2 contrary to what people are arguing.

fiat_lux , 10 months 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.

toastus , 10 months 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.

DessertStorms , 10 months ago (edited 10 months 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.

fiat_lux , 10 months ago (edited 10 months 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.

toastus , 10 months 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 , 10 months 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.