Why YSK: because what seems like equal situation from surface isn’t always equal opportunity for all. And even when equal measure of help is provided, it might not be equally useful.

        • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
          21·
          11 months ago

          I really don’t mean to be contrarian but I simply don’t understand how a leaning tree can be assistance in panel 1 but not in panel 2.

          • DessertStorms@kbin.social
            5·
            11 months ago

            It is assistance in both, but the point is that “equal” assistance in an unequal world (the tree still leaning one way) doesn’t actually provide justice, since those the tree is leaning towards still benefit more, even when the others have “extra” assistance.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            4·
            11 months ago

            The leaning tree represents things that are unintentional, the tree just grew like that, it wasn’t on purpose.

            The second panel represents intentional assistance, it was given to them on purpose.

          • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
            2·
            11 months ago

            I really don’t mean to be a contrarian

            I’m not sure I believe that, but I’m gonna continue to give you the benefit of doubt for a bit more.

            The assistance being alluded to is assistance on top of the system to correct the negative effects of the system.

            The vast majority of the reasons any group of people is marginalised at all are systemic and stem from powerful people in the past (and, to a much lesser but still abhorrent degree, the present) writing the rules to give themselves and other people like them advantageous conditions compared to others.

            • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
              1·
              11 months ago

              Thanks for the benefit of the doubt I guess.

              I think I will stay at my own conclusion that this picture doesn’t do a good job of pointing out the differences between the panels.

              They could just as easily have given the left child the ladder from panel 1 on. That would show that just equalizing the tools and assistance doesn’t create real justice in a flawed system.
              I am not convinced that starting with no tools and assistance (aside from the tree that somehow is assistance in panel 1 and isn’t in panel 2) and then giving them both the same ladder makes that point very well.

              But maybe I still just don’t quite get it.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      42·
      11 months ago

      It represents unintentional assistance though, not a bias that exists on purpose. Ex: old building entrance is higher than sidewalk, there’s stairs to go up, it wasn’t the intention to cut access to the disabled, it’s a consequence of the default choice.

      • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
        7·
        11 months ago

        Some of it IS intentional, though, or (as in your own example) lack of intentionality from another time with a lot less attention being paid to equal access for people outside of the “standard human” powerful people had in mind when building structures both physical and societal.

        There being a default at all is a form of discrimination and harm against the people that it disadvantages, whether or not it’s intentional.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          23·
          11 months ago

          The inequality wasn’t intentional, people didn’t put stairs so disabled wouldn’t have access, they put stairs because that’s what you do when you want people to go up and it had that unintended effect.

          The tree didn’t grow leaning on one side so the kid on the wrong side wouldn’t get apples, it grew like that because nature made it.

          Giving them ladders was intentional, building a ramp too narrow for wheelchairs that’s intentional… And that’s the difference between panel 1 and 2, they don’t have tools that are supposed to help them at first, then they are given a tool and they’re inappropriate for one of them.

      • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        3·
        11 months ago

        Even if the inequality is completely accidental, shouldn’t we do something about it? Like, we don’t have to make everyone millionares, but if the system accidently makes some people suffer, shouldn’t we try to change that?

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          11 months ago

          Never said nothing should be done about it, just pointing out that there’s in fact a difference between panel 1 and panel 2 contrary to what people are arguing.

        • SaakoPaahtaa@lemmy.world
          217·
          11 months ago

          Yes and I can even see if theyre any good or not. This one is pretty weak analogy since the kid can walk to the other side. Its not the trees fault its a bit askew

          • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
            51·
            11 months ago

            As I explained in another reply, the illustration could have added fences and other barriers, but that would have sacrificed clarity for a degree of accuracy only necessary for pedants like yourself.

            And yes, it ABSOLUTELY is the fault of the system and those in charge of shaping it if it’s crooked and nothing is done to straighten it out or at the very least compensate for the disparity.

            I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or just genuinely obtuse, but I’m leaning more and more towards believing the former.

            • whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works
              12·
              11 months ago

              No, it would have added clarity because it would show that the kid on the right is prevented from going to the left side, which is a necessary assumption for the given metaphor to work.

              However, that would make it obvious what the real problem and the solution is. Which would be detrimental to the political message the comic is trying to push, because then instead of giving assistance (putting up boards to move the tree), the obvious solution would be removing something (the literal and metaphorical barrier). The author clearly intended to show that providing assistance is justice, not removing barriers.

              It’s a disingenuous comic, because equity and “justice”, while appearing differently in the comic, in practice would be exactly the same thing.

              Besides, anyone portraying their position as “justice” is a massive red flag.

              • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
                1·
                11 months ago

                There are myriad rules and individuals keeping that tree crooked while erecting barriers both visible and invisible. Removing official barriers doesn’t remove the unofficial ones. The only way that those can can be overcome without infringing on anyone’s rights is by empowering the disempowered to be able to scale them.

                Also, maybe not the best idea to bring up red flags when your username heavily implies xenophobia and a complete lack of respect for international law…

            • SaakoPaahtaa@lemmy.world
              210·
              11 months ago

              Having barriers would be unequal, sure. But my brother, trees just grow last time I asked they said they dont really give a shit what a couple of hungry kids think of it.