Egalitarianism is just a slightly less authoritarian version of social justice. The sooner you creatures admit that...

OP is right guys. Egalitarianism is fucking shit tier. Equality is a fucking shit idea (yes a spook) and should be replaced with equity which yes is inequality.

I don't support inequality, I support individuals not having their rights curtailed because a lawmaker said something is racist.

We have a winner!

fascist (n): newspeak for being smart enough to see through the sham of social justice.

Some measurable form of equality between individuals is the very basis of leftist thought. In light of that, would you consider yourself post-leftist?

Why even call yourself an anarchist?

Equity financing is one of the most popular forms of venture capital.

First you have to understand equity is an attempt at reaching equality in the end goal. Now clearly things are quite unequal. For instance if communism was established worldwide overnight, work would have to be done to undo centuries of racism towards black Americans. They would need more resources than your average white family. And so I can say assuredly that it is quite left. Though I think leftism is more complex than that which you imply

wew

Also, answer the question

This, my friend, is what we call inequality.
You want to give more of the common wealth to some people only because of their skin color.

Equality is when everyone live by the same rule and are free to do the same things.

Fascism makes no claim of white superiority. I would argue that BLM are very fascist in favor of black people.

So equality is shit, but it's something you seek as an end goal, through the strategy of equity, which is different from equality because…? Are you schizophrenic?

Because equality before the law is what we already have. I think we can agree that SJW are not happy with what we currently have.

How about you at least try to grasp inequality because you think one of its main forms is simply an aesthetic difference..

Without writing a novel I abbreviate. To elaborate for your sake, equality itself is a fine goal. But to use it as a method to get to the goal is impossible. So you see there are two ways of using the term, people are not used to separating them. Clearly a period of inequality to restore the scales is necessary, and to simply keep the weights the same would never solve the problem. In addition fear not, no rights of yours would be infringed…that is the main source of fear I detect when this issue is discussed

Equality before the law means a lawmaker can be forcefully disbarred for being "homophobic," and that shit like "homophobic" can be made up out of the blue.

I am not the one who want to give more things to black people simply because they are black.

I see the Holla Forums is still in you. Honestly I had higher expectations of this board but I suppose it's still too similar to 4chen

How is that equality before the laws fault, and not giving people special muh privileges before the law?

Supporting social justice isn't the same thing as being an SJW. An SJW is someone who is fanatical about social justice, especially when they don't even understand what they're talking about - for example people who don't understand the theory behind the ideas. It's like Stalinboos who have never read Marx.

Try Tumblr if you don't want to face people disagreeing with you.

Equality of outcome can not be forced on the people for everyone if different. The only form of equality you can have is equal opportunity.

Oh I'm interested in all kinds of stimulating dissent, just not lazy entry level shit I've heard a thousand times before.

Except actively "restoring the scales" isn't inequality, it's -equality of outcome-. You are deeply confused.

...

Being an SJW also isn't the same thing as being an SJW. It's a circle-jerk term that's ultimately meaningless. Don't be a coward and actually describe the behaviors you dislike.

If a thousand different people told you you are making a mistake on a particular point, maybe you should take a deep look at this point.

In common parlance, and in how so called egalitarians define it, that process is patently not equality. And equity or readjusting those scales is not EVERYONE EVERYWHERE gets the SAME thing. So it must not be equality. Essentially it's semantics, I agree it's confusing. What we call it is irrelevant as long as we agree that certain folks need more resources due to the nature of history and the magnitude of injustices levied against them. Then we agree

Listen to yourself you're saying that the masses >>>> a well thought out argument with evidence.

Actually, most people would call a situation where everybody has the same outcome an equal one. The center-left alternative you're describing is called "equal opportunity"– it allows for some inequality, but only inequality that is naturally occurring as a result of the differences between individuals, not what they had to start with. Redistributing wealth from one part of the population to the other isn't inequality unless you're positioning one group to be better off than the other. You quite literally do not know what words mean.

Because equality gives people that idea. Equality means writing laws in the benefit of those who were once discriminated against, or who paint themselves that way. We have black and Hispanic history months in the states, but if you point out how white people are omitted from that lineup, you're looked at as if you admitted to keeping hostages in your basement for poison testing.

Nice scarecrow. Yes, the law should be the same for everyone, but causing street riots because a bakery won't serve you is unadulterated nonsense.

What happened long ago have a very marginal role to play in the current situation.

But I will follow your logic. Should Americans who come from Ireland get the special treatment? Should the Ukrainian American get it? They both had an history arguably worse than the one of the African slaves in the USA.

And yet outcome was never mentioned, only resources.

Uh no, like I said I mention resources not opportunity. What you consider natural I would consider social stratification. Hopefully you truly mean natural randomness, but that is microscopic compared to social difference.

It would still be inequal because the goods, resources, would need to take affect and tgat could take decades. In two ways, the inequality still being apparent despite equal resources and in the disadvantaged receiving more education/resources/getting priority since we are most likely not operating in an infinite resource environment.

And that in itself is a form of equality.

Do Americans who come from Ireland and Ukrainian Americans still suffer from insane incarceration rates and disproportionate sentencing for violent crimes? Do they get shot by police for no readon with little to no reprimand for the officer? Do they have generations of slavery in their blood? Are they paid less simply because of their skin color? Do people still treat them differently due to an idea that was formed by dteds of years ago to justify the idea that they are subhuman and thus can be worked to the bone with little remorse?

Then is it really equality under the law?
If I just say something is equality, does it suddenly make it that?

Again, how does this have anything to do with equality under the law?

No, because they don't break the law more than normal people.

If you really don't do nothing, you will not get executed just like that. Cops make mistakes, they get stressed, but keep it cool and you survive. To answer your question, whites get shot by police too, so yes.

No, they get paid less because they identify as a werewolf. Stupid.
I will sound like double face but capitalism have a thing: it is fair to all proletarian. If your boss could get the same job done for cheaper by firing you and hiring a black or a women, they would have your job by now.

...

They don't, that's a myth. And that doesn't explain thier sentencing being harsher compared to other races doing the same crimes

Lol no if youve glanced at us news you'll see strings of black men being shot for no reason. And cops getting no reprimand. Blacks get shot more often, cops are corrupt AF and pawns of the bourgeois.

It is not fair by a longshot, capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum it coexists with hatred of women racism ableism etc. If a black wkman looks to be a better candidate but there's a less qualified white man he'll be more likely to be chosen.

Okay, they don't. It just happen that a lot of black American die to another black American all the time.

If you dislike cops so much, why don't you go live where there is no cops?

I don't even know where to start with you. You are completely disconnected for the real world. Where do you live and what do you do with you time?

There is a police violence in the US, but to paint it as a racism problem is just a good way to get nothing done.

This happen:
youtube.com/watch?v=6tpAZObNZfI
And no one bat an eye.

Some bandit rob a liquor store, harass people in the street, go punch a cop in his car and get shot, major media outrage.

The problem is in the news coverage and in police brutality, not in racism against blacks.

Egalitarianism is defined as equal players having equal opportunity. You could look it up.
French economist Thomas Piketty raised INCOME inequality in a dollar and cents argument. A $1 billion investment at 10 percent earns $100 million. A $1 million investment earns $100k. You can see where that's going. Piketty argues that, in fact, Downton Abbey is the natural state of affairs, and that the latter half of the 1900s was an aberration brought about by the Depression wiping out capital and WWII applying a premium to labor.
Even if you like the idea of Lord Grantham ruling, you should spend a minute considering the transition costs. We live in a consumer economy. The top 0.01 percent may be excellent consumers of some goods, but in the end they are 1 in 10,000.
At a minimum we should level the playing field. Contrary to the Depression when everyone lost, we bailed out the bondholders who financed the mortgage meltdown and then told strapped homeowners that a deal is a deal.
For the record, SJWs in my opinion are as puerile as as the pimple-faced trolls here who think memes pass as understanding.

where'd the paligenetic nationalism which BLM has?

Why should someone who performs a nice safe bureaucrats job in an office receive the same allocation of resources as a miner or firefighter? The latter two are risking their lives for society, the former is not. Surely the two who're willing to risk their own well being for the rest of us should be granted a slightly better deal than usual?