Well... the "other side" would oppose informing the populace that the equality dogma is false (or at least unproven), so it isn't just the far right that likes their myths.

Attemps to ban things that are false runs into the difficulty that you need to first determine what is false, which is hard to do if one of the answers might contradict an important value.

I should stop replying to political posts with more politics. :/

> the "other side" would oppose informing the populace that the equality dogma is false (or at least unproven)

What do you mean by the equality dogma?

More or less the belief that we are all equal with equal potential (it's more or less a consequence of egalitarianism). That if little Timmy just tries hard enough and is given enough support he'll be able to master differential equations.

Do you have an example of where this belief is expressed? Because the common trope afaik is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

What would be the difference in public policy anyways if after-the-fact results differ?

Well, some public policy differences would be continuing to invest ever increasing amounts of money on the worst performers in schools in an attempt to get them up nearer the average.

Another might be seeing the lack of women plumbers (or whatever) and deciding that this is both bad and fixable and investing a bunch of money into advertising how awesome plumbing is to girls in school.

> Well, some public policy differences would be continuing to invest ever increasing amounts of money on the worst performers in schools in an attempt to get them up nearer the average.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that we, as a society, should not invest in worst performers? How would we even know beforehand? And how would withdrawing such funding from "bad" schools not affect the opportunity of all of the children of that school?

What's your point about the gender ratios of certain occupations? That it's a waste of money to try to alter?

I'm not actually advocating for this here. Just pointing out potential policy differences that come from a non-equality worldview.

I don't have the time to give an in depth discussion on education etc the attention it would need.

Though to elaborate on the education policy difference, you can invest variable amounts into the bottom performers, even eventually giving up on them. As I understand it, schools currently have various legal obligations towards students that lead to them spending disproportionate resources on the least performant.

Even with accepting that rather cynical view, I don't understand how you could even accurately determine who is a "hopeless bottom performer" without at the same time removing peoples equal opportunity.

Well, yes, everyone feels that way, but whose feelings are well-founded and whose aren't?

This is the difference between "we are banning substance X because we did a controlled experiment and found it to be carcinogenic", and "we are banning X because we are afraid of ghosts".

> whose feelings are well-founded and whose aren't?

This is the gist of it and is really hard to tell, even though some people claim it’s easy.

I would measure what side makes sense based on their recommended interventions. For example, if one side is so certain they want to ban speech that contradicts them then they are probably wrong.

It takes pretty clear evidence for what is right and wrong and lots of effort to determine. So it’s usually hard to dedicate those resources to topics.

Of course there are lots of sides and not just two so it becomes harder and harder.

> This is the gist of it and is really hard to tell, even though some people claim it’s easy.

It seems to me that people are nearly universally assuming that this is easy, and that obviously their side is always absolutely correct, and questioning that is basically heretic. This is how we end up always blaming the evil other side, and with "you're either with us or against us".

I used to think this was easy until I had to implement even really simple versions for small populations. They devolve quickly and aren’t very valuable compared to other activities.

That and as much as people complain, there’s a magical thinking that technology can do anything they see in sci-fi or an AI consultant has told them is possible.

So I would like to hear back from people after they’ve tried for a while.

It's even more insane how willing people are to say "both sides do X" when one side does X a thousand times more than the other side does.

Blaming one side over another doesn't actually solve any problems, just increases polarization, which is the whole issue.

You just proved my point again?