Yeah I don't think anyone asked for equal outcome. That is a red herring. People in America always wanted EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.... which people in America for the longest time. Why is it that White people are against this to this day? Jim Crow, Segregation and systemic bias prevented equal opportunity.
To Mr Hughes' final point, I like to ask the question "Is Lex Luthor a better person than Jimmy Olsen?" By just about every measurable metric (IQ, ambition, work ethic etc etc) he is a superior human being, but is he a better person?
## Problems Discussed in the Text The text discusses several problems related to meritocracy, affirmative action, and equal outcomes in higher education. These include: * **The impossibility of equal outcomes:** The speaker argues that, even in a society that strives for equal opportunity, equal outcomes are not achievable due to factors such as cultural diversity and individual differences. * **The limitations of meritocracy:** The speaker suggests that meritocracy, while desirable in principle, can be hindered by factors like socioeconomic background, legacy admissions, and the limitations of standardized tests. * **The unintended consequences of affirmative action:** The speaker raises concerns that affirmative action policies may unintentionally harm the very students they aim to help by placing them in environments where they are less likely to succeed. ## Arguments Made in the Text The speaker makes several arguments in support of their positions: * **Meritocracy is a necessary principle:** The speaker argues that meritocracy is essential for a just and efficient society, as it rewards individuals based on their abilities and accomplishments rather than arbitrary factors like race or class. * **Equal outcomes are not achievable:** The speaker contends that equal outcomes are not feasible, even with the best intentions, due to the inherent diversity of individuals and the complex interplay of factors that influence success. * **Affirmative action can have unintended consequences:** The speaker suggests that affirmative action policies may inadvertently harm disadvantaged students by placing them in environments where they are less likely to thrive. * **Standardized tests are not perfect measures of merit:** The speaker argues that standardized tests, while valuable, are not perfect measures of merit and can be influenced by factors such as socioeconomic background and access to resources. Overall, the speaker advocates for a system that prioritizes meritocracy while recognizing the limitations of standardized tests and the need to address systemic inequalities to ensure that all individuals have a fair chance to succeed.
At 74 I can say that I did not grow up in a multicultural society. I reject multiculturalism. I do not celebrate the inevitable conflict and mistrust that always accompany multiculturalism. That cutural diversity brought conflict to Minnesota where I was born and to Fla where I grew up, and to Ca where I lived for decades. I brought crime and conflict to Nordic countries.
My IQ is only 135, but at least I know that having an attitude like yours would be bad for my school and career success. But I agree with you that taxation is theft.
@@freesk8excessive taxation, you mean? I don’t see how a mixed economy modern welfare state with a large public sector can survive at all without taxation. If you take the polar opposite- a libertarian laissez faire economy - it tends to concentrate too much capital and power into the hands of the few and egregious income inequality is a strong predictor of revolution and bloodshed. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. We are definitely swinging in the wrong (leftist/welfare) direction but a dogmatic reversal is also quite disastrous in the long run, it seems to me
@@rafalrocks I respectfully disagree. I think the concentration of wealth is more likely a result of people buying special influence from a government that has too much power. I think that private orgs and charities do a much better job of helping the poor than do government welfare programs. If it were up to me, I would abolish all of them, and replace them with voluntary charity. I think that if taxation were eliminated, the economy would grow dramatically, wages and job opportunities would increase for the poor and middle class, and much more money would be available to those private charities than is now available under welfare programs.
![[FINALE] 💸ที่แท้พ่อเป็นผู้ถือหุ้นบริษัทพันล้าน เขากลับใจตอนนี้ก็สายไปแล้ว🙇🏻♂️#ละครคุณธรรม #short](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yFwgjTFISUI/mqdefault.jpg)
Is equity just shorthand for socialism?
For more liberty clips, subscribe to my channel and click the bell!
Yeah I don't think anyone asked for equal outcome. That is a red herring.
People in America always wanted EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.... which people in America for the longest time.
Why is it that White people are against this to this day? Jim Crow, Segregation and systemic bias prevented equal opportunity.
Important conversation, thought provoking and realistic.
The problem is that equal outcomes are possible, but not for the living.
That’s so true!😂
To Mr Hughes' final point, I like to ask the question "Is Lex Luthor a better person than Jimmy Olsen?" By just about every measurable metric (IQ, ambition, work ethic etc etc) he is a superior human being, but is he a better person?
## Problems Discussed in the Text
The text discusses several problems related to meritocracy, affirmative action, and equal outcomes in higher education. These include:
* **The impossibility of equal outcomes:** The speaker argues that, even in a society that strives for equal opportunity, equal outcomes are not achievable due to factors such as cultural diversity and individual differences.
* **The limitations of meritocracy:** The speaker suggests that meritocracy, while desirable in principle, can be hindered by factors like socioeconomic background, legacy admissions, and the limitations of standardized tests.
* **The unintended consequences of affirmative action:** The speaker raises concerns that affirmative action policies may unintentionally harm the very students they aim to help by placing them in environments where they are less likely to succeed.
## Arguments Made in the Text
The speaker makes several arguments in support of their positions:
* **Meritocracy is a necessary principle:** The speaker argues that meritocracy is essential for a just and efficient society, as it rewards individuals based on their abilities and accomplishments rather than arbitrary factors like race or class.
* **Equal outcomes are not achievable:** The speaker contends that equal outcomes are not feasible, even with the best intentions, due to the inherent diversity of individuals and the complex interplay of factors that influence success.
* **Affirmative action can have unintended consequences:** The speaker suggests that affirmative action policies may inadvertently harm disadvantaged students by placing them in environments where they are less likely to thrive.
* **Standardized tests are not perfect measures of merit:** The speaker argues that standardized tests, while valuable, are not perfect measures of merit and can be influenced by factors such as socioeconomic background and access to resources.
Overall, the speaker advocates for a system that prioritizes meritocracy while recognizing the limitations of standardized tests and the need to address systemic inequalities to ensure that all individuals have a fair chance to succeed.
Ive never touched a deer before
At 74 I can say that I did not grow up in a multicultural society. I reject multiculturalism. I do not celebrate the inevitable conflict and mistrust that always accompany multiculturalism. That cutural diversity brought conflict to Minnesota where I was born and to Fla where I grew up, and to Ca where I lived for decades. I brought crime and conflict to Nordic countries.
America without multiculturalism would be Australia. It’s made us a superpower.
my IQ is 141. School must beg me to consider them.I'm not into paying taxes.
My IQ is only 135, but at least I know that having an attitude like yours would be bad for my school and career success. But I agree with you that taxation is theft.
I don't mind this person's attitude man. Let them believe in their smarts and their value
@@freesk8excessive taxation, you mean? I don’t see how a mixed economy modern welfare state with a large public sector can survive at all without taxation. If you take the polar opposite- a libertarian laissez faire economy - it tends to concentrate too much capital and power into the hands of the few and egregious income inequality is a strong predictor of revolution and bloodshed. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. We are definitely swinging in the wrong (leftist/welfare) direction but a dogmatic reversal is also quite disastrous in the long run, it seems to me
@@rafalrocks I respectfully disagree. I think the concentration of wealth is more likely a result of people buying special influence from a government that has too much power. I think that private orgs and charities do a much better job of helping the poor than do government welfare programs. If it were up to me, I would abolish all of them, and replace them with voluntary charity. I think that if taxation were eliminated, the economy would grow dramatically, wages and job opportunities would increase for the poor and middle class, and much more money would be available to those private charities than is now available under welfare programs.