Why can't we just be Egalitarian?

[Raidosounds]

That means not just equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome. So whether you are a janitor or a CEO, your should have the same outcome, i.e. the same income. Now I don't like the current levels of wealth inequality in the world. The most wealthiest of individuals should pay more taxes for sure. But egalitarianism is taking that way, way, way too far. In truth I don't feel like I need any of these -isms. To me social liberalism covers all of these issues as well as all other issues relevant to how we structure our society. That's the only -ism I need. So therefor I say thanks, but no thanks to being Egalitarian.

I have never ever heard an Egalitarian ask for equality of outcome and most prominent figures (at least in youtube and media) are usually super anti-comunist, making your example a falacy. Most egalitarians usually use how they are going for equality of oportunities vs equality of outcome when talking down on movements like feminism.

I really don't align with any of those but i think you got them mixed up.

[Zarc]

Equality of outcome takes you to a seperate wiki page. They aren't the same thing.

What? It's right there.

An early example of equality-of-outcome economic egalitarianism is Xu Xing, a scholar of the Chinese philosophy of Agriculturalism, who supported the fixing of prices, in which all similar goods and services, regardless of differences in quality and demand, are set at exactly the same, unchanging price....

I really don't align with any of those but i think you got them mixed up.

Not really. Just reading from Wikipedia. Don't really care either way, equality is already part of the much broader ideology of social liberalism which I do identify with.

[Cthulhu 2020]

People aren't equal so it doesn't make sense to be Egalitarian. People should be treated for their value and merit, but that by it so you should treat people unequally. Even if you wanted to treat people equally DESPITE that, it would imply unequal treatment, because some people do things that also make it so you should treat them negatively compared to others, or in a way, allowing for poor behavior or decisions because you treat people the same despite that.

Equality in most senses is not only a lie but not even an ideal.

Egalitarianism is not about making everyone exactly the same. It's about ensuring that people have the same opportunities and are not discriminated against.

If a job requires that you haul around 60 pound bags of cement all day, an employer should say that and ensure that any female applicants are physically capable of handling that to expectations, instead of just saying "NO WIMMINZ"

[PC2]

What? It's right there.

A sub-section that you have selected without full context. Stop trying to conflate two different concepts.

[Tijuana]

Equality to the right is everyone starts on the same start line. Equality to the left is everyone finishes at the same finish line. It's not any more complicated than that.

[Raidosounds]

This whole conversation is around social and legal egalitarianism, not economic, while they share the same word, one is how you treat persons under law and socially(which pertains to this conversation) the other one is literally economic equality which derails from the topic at hand and is not really part of the contemporary egalitarian movement we are talking about.

[GrinningMan]

To me, egalitarianism is the only logical choice when it comes to choosing a mindset for approaching the issues of equality among genders/races/etc.. Yet many people, despite claiming that they support total equality, remain with labels that clearly favor one group over another—not to mention the baggage caused by the actions of adherents.

With egalitarianism, I don't have to abuse loopholes to make it seem the ideology that supports everyone, because it does without compromise. The name doesn't carry any bias, and it's applicable in a universal manner. The definition of egalitarianism also translates into its practice—unlike other ideologies who's supporters try to push the definition when the actual practice is a far cry.

To me at least there is no other option that remains consistent and logical in both theory and practice, yet people shy from claiming egalitarianism as theirs, and are stubborn in remaining with ideologies that have far too many strings attached.

I probably already know the answer to this, but it would be nice to hear thoughts on egalitarianism in particular from this forum, and why people are slow to adopt it.

Because the plan is to divide, not unite. It has always been about dividing.

[LazarusLong]

Equality to the right is everyone starts on the same start line. Equality to the left is everyone finishes at the same finish line. It's not any more complicated than that.

So, everyone starts with same inheritance, education and healthcare? Nope and right object all of that.

[Zarc]

"equality-of-outcome economic egalitarianism"

If equality of outcome and egalitarianism were the same thing, it would be redundant to state both.

Clearly "equality-of-outcome" is descriptive of the "economic egalitarianism" part. Anyways it's even more clear in the summary at the very top of the article if you don't trust my word on that.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English: either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights; or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people, economic egalitarianism, or the decentralization of power.

Again, as I said earlier, obviously there are forms of egalitarianism that does not include equality-of-outcome. But there are also forms that do. And so I feel that word is no less free of baggage than feminism. And so I opt out using either, and instead stick with a broader more complete ideology that covers everything.

This whole conversation is around social and legal egalitarianism, not economic, while they share the same word, one is how you treat persons under law and socially(which pertains to this conversation) the other one is literally economic equality which derails from the topic at hand and is not really part of the contemporary egalitarian movement we are talking about.

Fair enough.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Equality to the right is everyone starts on the same start line. Equality to the left is everyone finishes at the same finish line. It's not any more complicated than that.

Which is funny, because nobody ever starts life at the same start line. It would be communism to ensure that they did. Left egalitarianism is about making sure everyone has the same opportunities. If you meet the credentials for a job, that's all that should matter in being considered an applicant. If you do equal work as someone else, you should receive equal pay. If their work is slightly more valuable than yours, they should be paid slightly more. Pretty simple. And yet so hard for "the right".

[Tijuana]

So, everyone starts with same inheritance, education and healthcare? Nope and right object all of that.

I was stating the ideal, not the current situation. I mean I made a super basic point and you are bringing in complexities. Eh...meh.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is funny, because nobody ever starts life at the same start line. It would be communism to ensure that they did. Left egalitarianism is about making sure everyone has the same opportunities. If you meet the credentials for a job, that's all that should matter in being considered an applicant. If you do equal work as someone else, you should receive equal pay. If their work is slightly more valuable than yours, they should be paid slightly more. Pretty simple. And yet so hard for "the right".

Actually no. What you state is the goal of the right. Are you really claiming that affirmative action was not an idea of the left? This should be interesting. I'm all ears.

The more I read what you said, it's just bizarre. Is there some sarcasm I am missing? I have never heard any person on the left espouse the notion that harder work should pay more.

[Dezerte]

Equality to the right is everyone starts on the same start line. Equality to the left is everyone finishes at the same finish line. It's not any more complicated than that.

Reality is more complicated though.

By default, everyone doesn't start at the same start line. But arguing for same finish also misses the problem.

[Tijuana]

Reality is more complicated though.

By default, everyone doesn't start at the same start line. But arguing for same finish also misses the problem.

Of course. I was stating the disconnect in the core ideals.

[Vyxn]

to many insist measuring equality by outcome and to reach equal out come you cant treat everyone equal

[Thepersona]

Egalitarianism is superior to feminism.

Egalitarianism =/= feminism

feminism IS about egalitarianism. it's putting women on equal grounds to men, and also puting men on equal grounds to women (how they express their feelings, gender roles, parenting rights, etc)

[Tempguy]

The answer is because Feminists will get mad and either

A: Label you a Feminist and assimilate you Borg style.
B: Call you a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe , etc, to shame you into claiming you are one of them.

...Now to read the comments and catch up

- - - Updated - - -

feminism IS about egalitarianism. it's putting women on equal grounds to men, and also puting men on equal grounds to women (how they express their feelings, gender roles, parenting rights, etc)

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Good one bud. Great joke, but others have said it first.

Edit Again:

Oh lord. People splitting hairs left and right over a simple concept. It isn't hard.

Feminist: Focus on women's issues and bettering the lives of women. (Period)

Egalitarian: You want people to be treated equally. Regardless of gender or race or whatever.

Equality of Opportunity: Merit based. You have the access to all the same education and benefits. It is up top you how far you go.

Equality of Outcome: Quota based. Think Affirmative Action. If you don't have any women in your board of directors, the govt will assign you some. Better hope they know how your company works.

And that's it. It's amazing how people can twist such simple concepts and make it seem like fucking surgery.

[Polyxo]

I don't think we can be truly egalitarian in a practical manner. It requires too much micromanaging that's simply not realistic, at least at the present day. However, we should work on making opportunity far more equal, and push for allowing a more equal reaping of economic rewards for work. That there is equality of opportunity is one of the most lied about/misunderstood things.

[Dezerte]

I consider feminism a sub-ideology of egalitarianism. It focuses on the female perspective. There is nothing wrong with being a feminist, it is unreasonable to expect that everyone is equally passionate about everything (now that would be "forced equality" taken to a whole new level).

What we should be asking ourselves is why isn't the egalitarian-movement stronger? Is it because it's too broad? Or is there already an overlap in politics? Something else?

[Tempguy]

I consider feminism a sub-ideology of egalitarianism. It focuses on the female perspective. There is nothing wrong with being a feminist, it is unreasonable to expect that everyone is equally passionate about everything (now that would be "forced equality" taken to a whole new level).

What we should be asking ourselves is why isn't the egalitarian-movement stronger? Is it because it's too broad? Or is there already an overlap in politics? Something else?

Cause it isn't a movement or some kind of twisted ideology. It's like Atheism.

You don't go around trying to convert people to be Egalitarian. Meanwhile Feminists...

[Spectral]

I despise egalitarianism and view it as an ideological cancer. Humans are emphatically not equal in abilities and trying to enforce equality has devastating consequences. Even as just an ideology without force, the results are envy and hatred.