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.

    • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
      31·
      1 year 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@lemmy.worldOP
        74·
        1 year 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.

        • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
          2·
          1 year 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@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          1 year 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@lemmy.wtf
        141·
        1 year 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@kbin.social
            51·
            1 year 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@programming.dev
        1·
        1 year 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@lemmy.worldOP
        54·
        1 year 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.