In both bolded parts you refer to the same type of people, if I am not mistaken.
In the first bolded part, you refer to equal(same) rights - which is equality of opportunity.
In the second bolded part, you seem to be implying that elitism and preference are somehow incompatible with equality, but since elitism and preference are compatible with equality of opportunity (all have equal opportunity to prove themselves, and based on this they become elite/are preferred), I interpret that as you talking about equality of outcome.
Another reason I think you’re talking about equality of outcome in this, second instance: The ones who use the word equality in a positive sense in modern times are almost always those who by equality mean equality of outcome - this means giving people different rights and opportunities, either more, in order to compensate for their genetic, natural deficiencies, or depriving them of rights so as to prevent their genetic, natural advantages to manifest in reality. Example: Affirmative action (prefering one race/sex over another), a fixed number of spots in some job that has to be occupied by a demographic X, etc.
Unrelated to this, just something I want to comment on too:
A democracy is an equality of outcome based system - regardless of your intelligence and education, your vote counts the same as everybody else’s, aka, the outcome is the same.
An equality of opportunity based system would try to account for people’s inherent inequalities in voting so everybody would f.e. take a test which would determine how informed they are about politics, how knowledgeable they are about economics and politics, and how intelligent they are, and take all those into account to determine how much their vote would be worth. Of course, this is a much more complex system that is harder to set up, but hardly anything can be as bad as everybody’s vote counting equally.
Then what’s your favorite album? And don’t say Dark Side of the Moon. You look like the kind of guy who couldn’t get into The Final Cut. You don’t look like you could get into the older stuff either; Relics, Meddle, Atom Heart Mother, Saucer Full of Secrets. I think you listen to The Wall over and over again in your sweaty little teenage room with the red bulb and the incense. Tell me Nick Mason is not the worst drummer in the history of rock. I dare you. You know Barrett freaked the fuck out and is living with his mum in Cambridge, right? For two points, finish the following words at the end of the Darkside album: there is no dark side of the moon, really…
For two more points, finish these words from the song Money: that geezer was…
Know your Floyd, dude. I’m gonna be hitting you with unexpected questions. You better be ready.
No way I’m going to go music dork on these particular forums. I am apparently lust waiting for an opportunity to say something smart.
That’s just my reply to favorite pf album question.
Artimas: Well it depends on how many times you’ve listened to these albums. After the 362nd time you have to move on. There is only one musician you can listen to forever without becoming a retard, and that is the Maestro; Mr. Frank Vincent Zappa. You’re not ready for him yet, though.
A true story: in 1987 my father parachuted into the Floyd show in Raleigh, N.C. as part of the opening act. He had colored smoke canisters on his feet and swirled around over the crowd as he came down. Pretty fuckin’ cool, right? Well let me tell you what wasn’t pretty fuckin’ cool. At that time I was locked up in a private mental hospital called Holly Hill. The sonofabitch called me from the concert to tell me what a wonderful time he was having. I’m sitting in the day room with a bunch of teenage nut jobs watching reruns on TV and playing foos ball. The staff calls me out and says my dad’s on the phone. He tells me the marijuana smoke was so thick he caught a contact buzz on the way down. Tells me the laser light show was fantastic. In the background I can hear them jamming.
Equality of opportunity: everyone who obbeys the rules and tos can post.
Equality of outcome: “I want to push the limits and do things that I have been warned against, but I don’t want to be denied the right to post.” In other words, that the rules should conform to me.
So what do you call it when the rules are claimed to be equal for all, but then people are treated unequally, the rules are suddenly all grey, and some get warned and banned for doing X while others do X and don’t get banned because of ideological reasons, which are then attempted to be concealed under the ‘grey area’ excuse?
