Thoughts about things

[lithera]

http://awesome.goodmagazine.com/transparency/usersubmissions/financialcrisis/klimiuk/ - Nice representation of where the money went and different types of money.

Amazon is starting a softball league and I'd mentioned that I'm interested in playing. It has been a LONG time since I've played but at one point I enjoyed playing.... I may have even been somewhat good. Hard to judge in hindsight.

I'm currently having problems with the word equal, as in seperate but equal and legally equal and treated as equals. If you have two seperate things, can they ever truly be equal? If you have two laws that are identical but called different things, is that just semantics at that point or is there a difference? Nothing, in my experience, is equal if it isn't exactly the same thing. Can you ever truly treat someone as an equal? If I do treat someone as an equal to me, does that downplay the fact that they are different than I am and have qualities inherent to them that make them a unique individual and worthy of respect for those differences? There can be serious mistakes made by assuming that someone else is coming to the table with the same experiences, skills, feelings... anything. Hrm. Me thinks equal is the incorrect word for these things. Maybe I'm over thinking again.

Bowling tonight sounds like a good time. I like bowling.

What else... There was something else I was thinking about. I can't remember right now. Maybe it'll surface later. Have an ocelot.

Comments

[fair-witness.livejournal.com]

To quote one of my favorite writers:

"Like and equal are two different things."

This has been your moment of zen.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

A good point.

[sharkcowsheep.livejournal.com]

Are these ocelots equal? They are separate. They'd be much cuter if they were together though. I feel there is a metaphor there.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

I think the one on the left is cuter. So no, not equal.

[sharkcowsheep.livejournal.com]

I'll have you know that the one on the left was labeled as "Hitler Ocelot" on Photobucket.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Now you've brought Hitler into it. The whole discussion is moot.

[sharkcowsheep.livejournal.com]

KYOOT, you mean.

More awesomlot!

[lithera.livejournal.com]

He looks sleepy. (Maybe she?)

[sharkcowsheep.livejournal.com]

She, I think. I see no hint of 'nads and in the absence of another awesomelot for size reference, that'll just have to do.

I personally surmise that she is wondering if she can untie the zookeeper's shoelaces.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Or perhaps chew on them.

[angrylemur.livejournal.com]

You may be confusing "equal" with "the same".

Two people can never be the same, it's true. Two people can, however, be given the same opportunities and be treated with the same respect regardless of what makes them different from each other. That's what equality is about - not assimilating so that everyone has or pretends to have the same history, experiences, reactions, gender, race, abilities, etc. That might lead to people being treated as equals, but it's a dishonest way of going about it because it denies people what makes them individuals. Equality is about recognizing differences and not denying the value of others based on those differences.

It's tricky because yeah, people have different experiences and strengths and that makes some people better suited to lead certain discussions, or better suited for specific types of work, or whatever, and a lot of the time people will deny that in the name of "equality" - which is just more of that "denying peoples' value based on certain factors ".

I don't know. I'm not saying any of this well at all. It's less complicated in my mind than I am making it seem. I mean, it's still complicated, but... agh.

What the crap. Sorry, I'll shut up now. But yeah, anyway, equality and the same are not, uh, the same.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Thus why I think equal is a bad word for it. Equal does mean same, they're synonyms. You get into a lot of trouble in a lot of different ways as soon as you start making assumptions about that equality.

Respect might be a better way to put it, for me at least. Or the golden rule of treat others as you would like to be treated but there are a lot of cases where /that/ fails due to perceptions and individual circumstances. And even that takes a level of self-awareness that not all people posess.

[angrylemur.livejournal.com]

Okay, I had to think about this for a minute.

The problem here is that in the context of advocacy, "equal" is used to mean "fair". And you're right, "equal" and "fair" aren't the same things; if we treated everyone as equals then we wouldn't have ramps for wheelchairs. But having ramps for wheelchairs means that people with wheelchairs have equal opportunity to get up the stairs as people who don't have wheelchairs. So it's important to make the distinction between equal opportunities and just equal...ness.

But for the purposes of discussions of rights and advocacy, "equality" is used as a blanket term. There's also the fact that "separate but equal" is really, really disingenuous, which complicates matters.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

That works for me, I think. Equal opportunities is a better idea but also comes into a huge mess of things. I have no idea how to judge if an opportunity for me is the same as it is for anyone else because an opportunity is what you make of it...

I'm probably over thinking.

[angrylemur.livejournal.com]

Or use "fair" in place of "equal". Ie, "treated fairly" instead of "treated as equals".

I don't think you're overthinking. I think it's important to figure out language stuff as language can be a bit of a minefield. I also think it's important to figure out what this stuff means to you personally and where you stand, and giving it thought is never a bad thing.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Not too bad. I'm still not entirely satisfied with it but it is better.

[candidgamera.livejournal.com]

Separate but equal, isn't. :)

Equality is different things in different contexts. Legally, if all people enjoy the same rights and freedoms, and suffer the same burdens, that's equality. The government should be utterly blind to differences.

Treating someone as an equal, in the context of personal relations, is more nebulous. It's about respect and treating them as you, yourself, would want to be treated. When dealing with new people, you just have to sit back and observe, so that your picture of them is based on the actual individual, and not your assumptions about them.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

I generally agree with all of your statements, though treating someone as you would like to be treated can get you into troubles with the assumptions that come along with it. It doesn't happen often but it can. As a minor and some what flippant example, assuming everyone will be okay with a pepperoni pizza.

[candidgamera.livejournal.com]

Treated like you would want to be treated isn't going to include specific pizza toppings. I would want to be asked what toppings I would want on a pizza, therefore I ask others what toppings they like on a pizza.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

That's fair.

I just know in my experience there are times where I over think or underthink a lot of those situations. I get too specific in attempting to figure out what the other would like. I've more than once ended up asking questions about observations I've had where the person acting hadn't noticed it at all.... It gets odd.

[candidgamera.livejournal.com]

Well, I can give you a concrete example of what I *think* you meant. I correct people if they mispronounce words. Because if I mispronounce a word, I want to be corrected. Some people don't like this.

I do it anyway, though, until I find out a specific individual doesn't like it. Then I try not to correct that person.

In that way, I occasionally give someone minor offense with a correction, but it's not because I'm making an assumption about them, it's because I'm maintaining consistent behavior in the absence of an assumption.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

That's close to what I'm getting at and works well enough for the purpose. There are a lot of people who are not aware enough to notice, unless specifically told, that others react a certain way to certain stimuli or even if they are told, to remember for the future.