My wife and I had a row (noisy argument) this morning. She did not understand why conservatives were opposed to “equity.” I replied that it was Marxist. She claimed that I was fearmongering. I said it was calling a spade a spade. She then gave an example of equity in that some students from her school were unable to purchase books from the school store because they did not have a credit card, could not get to the store when it was open (limited hours, not near class times), and could not order online (lack of credit card). This was an equity issue in that the school store was not fair by not being open or available to all of the students, resulting in unnecessary hardship. I said that this sense of equity is not the same as the political “equity” currently being pushed by progressives, and that is “equity of wealth.” She denied that there was a difference. [Maybe I am wrong. She fetched a dictionary to show me “equity,” and this seems to agree with her school store example. I need to recheck everything progressives say about equity, but my sense is that they have deliberately conflated equity with redistribution.]
From there, the “discussion” went rapidly downhill along a long and twisty path. In contrast to Marxism, I said that capitalism is selfish pursuit of wealth. I also stated that fascism is the government telling you what you can and can’t do, and backing it up with police force.
On reflection, I can see where I use specific terms as shorthand for not having to give the full definitions of things during conversations. But I can see that the lack of common understanding of these terms is impeding a healthy and meaningful discussion.
My dream solution would be to have a debate in a library where we can both fetch books to help defend (explain) our positions. But more realistically, I think we all need to bone up on succinct definitions of important terminology (terms), and be prepared with alternate words or examples to clarify. This is necessary because a typical ploy is to redefine key words to mean the opposite of the traditional meaning, just to confuse the issues.
From there, the “discussion” went rapidly downhill along a long and twisty path. In contrast to Marxism, I said that capitalism is selfish pursuit of wealth. I also stated that fascism is the government telling you what you can and can’t do, and backing it up with police force.
On reflection, I can see where I use specific terms as shorthand for not having to give the full definitions of things during conversations. But I can see that the lack of common understanding of these terms is impeding a healthy and meaningful discussion.
My dream solution would be to have a debate in a library where we can both fetch books to help defend (explain) our positions. But more realistically, I think we all need to bone up on succinct definitions of important terminology (terms), and be prepared with alternate words or examples to clarify. This is necessary because a typical ploy is to redefine key words to mean the opposite of the traditional meaning, just to confuse the issues.