The Fallacy of Worshipping Equality: Social Liberalism's Greatest Mistake

0:02 [Music] hey internets so I've been studying history and philosophy for over 25 years and quite possibly one of the biggest problems with this world I have realized is ironically the fact that a huge portion of our intellectual Elites have absolutely no clue what's wrong with it oh sure they think they know what's wrong with it for example if you were to go onto your average sort of Western liberal college campus and then ask them this question of what exactly is wrong with the world they will of course all proceed to give you an answer answers that will vary from person to person but there's one answer that will come out as

0:48 relatively common which that a lot of them think that the problem with the world the main issue driving all of our ills is simply inequality that if we just had more equality then the world would have less conflict less scarcity less problems in general and magical flying unicorns and rainbows and stuff you get the picture and the issue with this response is that it's just well blatantly not true in fact not only is it not true but if anything the opposite is closer to being true if we were to take a look at history for example most violent conflicts mostly just come from a place of tribalistic aggression so for example one state might want the land and resources of another state and so the leaders of that state will then convince their people that everybody and other tribe bad usually coming from a place of lies and propaganda and the reasons can vary for example other tribe

1:34 bad because they worship the wrong God or they're just barbarians or perhaps the dear leader will claim that they have a divine right to that land or something but a really common one is that their tribe has collectively done something wrong to our tribe and that's where things get a little bit ironic because a really common type of this particular justification come from shaky or just sometimes outright completely false accusations of inequality or some kind of social injustice or unfairness of some sort for example both the hore or the Ukrainian J side at the hands of the Soviet Union and the Holocaust were Loosely based on claims of inequality Stalin largely accused many of the ukrainians of being of the kolak class causing inequality by hoarding land and grain from others and a lot of Ado's accusations against the Jews were based on claims that Jews had rigged the

2:20 system against the Germans and then similar problems happened with ppot or with ma Zedong or one lesser known one is that it was even one of the reasons used to justify The Armenian Genocide this bizarre justification of economic social Envy where those who are more prosperous are accused of being more prosperous out of some kind of wrongdoing or in other words men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it while mistakenly believing that they're fighting for justice history shows us that it's actually often demagogues who claim to be fighting for equality that are often the real cause of the world's greatest atrocities or in other words the line between equality and envy is actually very thin and yet for some reason equality is drastically overvalued in just about all Western intellectual institutions just a basic look at history shows that they've got it

3:05 totally backwards which then immediately brings up the question how the heck did this happen how do so many allegedly smart people get it so wrong where the heck is this bizarre almost cult-like worship of equality coming from but before I get into that this video has a sponsor and that sponsor is private internet access using the internet without a VPN these days is like advertising to the world both your location along with everything you were doing online vpn's fix this Problem by securing your data to protect you from hackers your ISP and spying agencies like the surveillance state but even better they are also a fantastic way to change your geolocation to access restricted content streaming services such as Netflix restrict the videos you can see by region and private internet access lets you change your IP address with a different country allowing you to access videos that you ordinarily could not this is especially true of sports

3:51 events watching Netflix without a VPN is like going out for fine dining but only having access to a small fraction of the menu there may or may not be anything you actually want but with a VPN this is not a problem you can EAS unlock those extra movies and shows I have been using private internet access for months now as my go-to VPN and I've been very impressed by its stability and lack of drops the streaming and torrenting speeds are excellent the encryption is top-notch and their no logs policy has been proven in court it's also available on all devices including a Linux version and on that note they even have a new feature where just one subscription to private internet access can now be used to protect an unlimited number of devices at the same time and that subscription is very affordable if you use my personal Link in the description below you get a coupon which gives you 83% off at only $23 per month plus 4 months free and all covered with a risk-free 30-day moneyb guarantee so

4:39 check private internet access out anyways to restate the basic question what exactly is driving this phenomenon where many educated people have fallen for this pit trap of overvaluing equality the answer to this boils down to an extremely common reasoning mistake that has wormed its way into our institutions and this mistake is what we will call the equality fallacy which is a type of MOT and Bailey fallacy that causes people to dogmatically overestimate The Virtue and prosperity associated with equality by means of unreasonable Arguments for equality being swapped with more defensible versions now mtin Bailey's are very interesting but they can also be a bit nefarious they tend to slip into more intellectual institutions a lot more often than other fallacies because M and Bailey tend to often have some pedantic level of Truth to them and so relatively intelligent but not super intelligent

5:25 people usually the midwit types tend to fall for mten Bailey a lot more often and the reason for that is how the argument is structured mtin Bailey refers to a certain type of Castle that used to be relatively common in the Middle Ages up to the 1600s or so where you would have a keep that is more defensible on a hill surrounded by a small village or something or a few other buildings that are considered part of the castle that are less defensible and the idea of these castles is that whenever it was under attack the people in the lower areas would then Retreat to the more defendable keep and in terms of logic this is what happens in the motten Bailey fallacy when you have a certain wide ranging belief such as the belief that equality is always the ultimate good you're going to have some arguments in favor of that that are defensible but you're also going to have some claims in favor of that that are just demonstrably false some of these are actually very incredibly foolish and what happens is

6:12 people will make the foolish claims but then when they are criticized for those foolish claims when someone points out why those claims are false they will then Retreat to the mot and swap it out for a more defensible version of the argument and so what makes the m and Bailey fallacy so nefarious is that because of this strategy because of retreating to the m whenever someone points out why you're wrong people end up thinking that the false claims are just as true as the claims that are in the mot so the more defensible versions of the argument end up being used to defend false claims they end up being used to push lies and deceit and in terms of the equality fallacy the m and Bailey tactic is used to defend this kind of dogmatic belief that equality is the greatest thing ever by swapping these fallacious Arguments for equality for arguments that also aren't exactly very good either but have a little bit of Truth to them and thus the ideology

6:58 can be defended so in terms of Defending equality we have things like Justice needs to apply equal rights to all parties or too much inequality can have some bad outcomes sometimes or unequal outcomes can sometimes indicate unfair treatment those are some examples of the M version of this argument these are some somewhat defensible arguments in favor of equality for example it is relatively true that a court that treats one party as having rights and the other party as not having rights so for example a judge that respects the property rights of the perpetrator but not the victim most people would probably consider that Court to be invalid critics would eventually call it out as a kangaroo court and eventually people would just not respect their judgment and then there's the consequentialist argument for inequality it does somewhat have some proof to it very massive power imbalances can result

7:43 in some negative outcomes and then the equity fallacy is in fact sometimes true insanely massive disparities can sometimes indicate that the game was rigged and now the problem of course is that you have these ridiculous arguments in favor of equality worship probably the stupidest one being equality good therefore equality real or the moralistic FY equality in general is not something that we see naturally occurring pretty much anywhere we don't see it in physics we don't see it in evolution and so there's no reason to expect to see it in genetics either there is no law in the universe that we found that even remotely comes close to suggesting that there is some kind of force of equality out there that is just 100% not a thing I mean just simple examples like if you're 5T tall you probably won't be as good at basketball and quickly debunk the claim that equality is real because it gives us

8:30 good happy feel butterf fly unicorn farts or whatever and yet people will still unironically try to make this argument or another one is the false cause fallacy where people will look at a bad outcome and assume that it came from inequality when in reality you can find inequality pretty much everywhere because againe equality isn't a real thing and so you're always going to be able to find some level of inequality that correlates with any kind of bad outcome because it's pretty much always there it's kind of like saying that oxygen kills you because everybody who breathes oxygen eventually dies and then of course you have other bad arguments like equality worship being used to justify eii communism socialism Etc or there's also the more ridiculous version of the unequal alchs argument where they claim that it's always indicative of unfair treatment or also known as the equity fallacy which is another can of worms entirely and the last one we'll be talking about is any data suggesting

9:15 inequality is inate must be censored which is one that you'll find a little bit less common in everyday conversation but it is one that comes up in cases of academic fraud where people will pretend that there's an academic consensus in matters where there's really just censorship and no actual consensus exists now of course this is all well and good but you might be wondering well how often does this mot and Bailey tactic actually occur how often do these more defensible arguments in favor of valuing equality happen in such a way that results in people being gaslit into accepting one of these more ridiculous claims and the answer unfortunately uh spoiler alert is that it happens a lot it happens a whole lot this trash fire has propagated itself in all aspects of Western Society it can be found in culture it can be found in politics it's pretty much the staple of how most journalists and it has even managed to

10:02 worm its way into the academics again thus resulting in nonsense research that uses bad data bad methodology obvious packing Etc basically just bad science in general this trash fire is so common that there's probably a Marxist Professor out there indoctrinating his students into the cult of equality as we speak using this m and Bailey strategy of the equality fallacy and so before we continue I'm just going to warn you all the rabbit hole of the equality fallacy runs deep very very deep I'm going to be showing you all examples of this happening and yet those examples are probably going to only equate to about 100 ft in a rabbit hole that runs for hundreds of miles you could actually spend your entire life researching and studying the equality fallacy and you still probably wouldn't uncover everything and so what you're going to see next is just enough evidence and just enough examples so you can both

10:48 spot the equality fallacy in the wild while having a basic understanding of just how deep the subject runs without actually having to delve that deep I mean to cover everything this video would have to be 5,000 hours long I'm pretty sure my video editing software can't even handle that pretty sure my GPU would just give me the finger but anyways before you can really spot the equality fallacy in the wild you first have to understand why some level of inequality is actually a good thing because this is actually probably the biggest reason why so many people get roped into the equality fallacy as a lot of educated people probably do understand why the bad arguments down here in the Bailey aren't really valid for instance most college educated leftists with at least a sociology degree or something can probably understand why at least on a logical level why the moralistic fallacy isn't a

11:33 valid argument for equality equality isn't real just because it gives you happy fuzzy warm feels however a lot of these people might think well equality is a good thing so what harm is there in there being bad Arguments for equality anyways and the answer to that is that equality really isn't all it's cracked up to be there are in fact some very good things about inequality the first of these is something called the winners versus whiners dichotomy when you see someone who's better off than you and you find that you want to have what they have there's a few different routes you can take and most of those routes will either fall into whining about it or finding out how you can also win so you can look at them and envy and be like wow look at what they have that's not fair why don't I have that w w w life is so unfair but there's another thing you can do and that is to instead of being envious of them you instead allow yourself to be motivated by them you

12:18 look at their success and think wow this kind of success is actually possible I wonder if I can gain that same level of success if I work just as hard as they did and so there's alternative a very positive way to look at inequality instead of something to whine about economic inequality actually can provide people with incentive for Innovation for better work ethic or just general self-improvement striving to be the better version of yourself which then brings us to the next problem which is that in a world of perfect equality there really isn't any such thing as achievement or sometimes known as the participation trophy problem if everybody's going to get the same recognition regardless of what you contributed to society then a lot of times people might just find themselves questioning well what's the point and so with this we begin to realize that equality isn't necessarily the same thing as fairness for instance if one person Works 40 hours and another person

13:06 Works 20 hours sure it would be equal to give them the same pay but would it actually be fair of course not that's ridiculous but unfortunately a lot of times people conflate the two things as being the same thing people will take equality and conflate it as being the same thing as fairness this is actually where the equity fallacy comes in in the mottin Bailey they will use the argument that because unequal outcome sometimes implies In fairness they will try to then say that it always implies In fairness despite the fact that there are very obvious scenarios we can think of where it doesn't but equality cultist will dance between those two in the mot and Bailey anyway and so not only is inequality a good economic incentive the kind of Utopia land where everybody is given the same thing where everybody is made equal where everyone's given the same trophy regardless of what they manag to do it's actually not a Utopia at all it's actually quite fake and cringe there's a very good reason why

13:51 just about every single human civilization has invented some form of sports and competition competition is honestly kind of fun but in a world of equality worship that starts to go away and so what happens is the thrill of the Arena just kind of ends up fading away sacrificed on the altar of equality good feels and that's not really what people want and so when you're honest with yourself most people find that we actually like inequality to some degree it's actually a necessary element to incentivize Humanity to constantly strive for a better world and better economic growth key words economic growth cuz that actually brings us to our third reason the thing is economics as it turns out is not zero some someone having more than another doesn't mean that that person has less because the other person has more in fact often the opposite is true often times humans striving for Greater Heights and achievement results in something that

14:37 actually makes everybody else's life better the most obvious example of this is probably Farmers farming in the last 200 years has seen a level of technological innovation that was just completely unheard of in previous generations and so farmers these days can own hundreds of acres of land with a variety of Highly Advanced Equipment that is all often worth tens of millions of dollars and so a lot of farmers at least in terms of their basic net worth tend to be pretty rich definitely a lot richer than me and probably richer than most of the people watching this video but then of course the question is is this inequality a bad thing absolutely not the reality is that because of these Innovations leading to Farmers having so much farmers are also able to produce a lot these days and because of that the planet is able to now sustain a lot more people than it previously could which then leads to more people which leads to

15:23 more hard workers which Meads to more innovation in fact most economic growth that Humanity has seen the vast vast majority of it has all occurred in the last 100 years and guess what inequality is largely to thank for that and we can further prove this by just looking at what socialists do a lot of times when a Communist Regime is coming up they often go after the farmers they see Farmers with all this stuff all this large netw worth and then they whine about it they say that's not fair that farmers have all this stuff and so then they collectivize the Farms or they confiscate the Farms or redistribute them in some way often the people who have absolutely no idea what they're doing resulting in them all pretty much starving to death yep that that's pretty much what happens every single time and the reason why it happens is kind of a no-brainer when you realize that inequality is often a good thing when you try to force equality amongst the

16:09 farmers it takes away that incentive to produce that much and so the production stops and then you don't have food and then you start the Communist come in and scream M inequality bad they take away people's incentive to create food and then wonder why there's less food truly the mystery of our AG is why this happens every single time they gain power and this is where we can start casting some doubt on even the more defensible Arguments for equality because while you can can argue that major power imbalances can have some bad outcomes the reality is that forcing equality tends to have even worse outcomes this is often referred to as an issue with consequentialism in general consequentialism has well consequences this is true for the other main reason up here Justice should apply equal rights to all parties as long as those rights are actual rights such as property rights you know the rights that truly matter right to yourself and right

16:55 to your own property and the right to protect it you can absolutely give everybody those kind of equal rights without expecting it to have equal outcomes and that's the thing that equality worshippers don't really understand attempting to force equality just because you like equality against people's will well that's just envy and this takes away from the idea that equality is always some kind of virtue because equality isn't a real thing you often have to take someone else's rights away in order to give equality to somebody else a better way to do this would be an appeal to charity or spreading the idea that people should voluntarily give to the less fortunate that way you're not violating anybody's rights and so what happens here is often people mistakenly believe that equality and charity are the same things when in reality it's only charity that is a virtue equality isn't really a virtue equality is more or less an outcome that

17:41 can sometimes give people happy good feels but it's not really the virtuous element here and this is something often credited to the philosopher Anne Rand and her explanation why altruism as a social entitlement isn't really a good thing when you try to legally force people to be altruistic it actually prevents real charity from going on and so while entitlement May create some equal outcomes that doesn't necessarily mean the equal outcomes are good they often come at the cost of lowering incentives and reducing economic growth and just in general again being fake and cringe now there are other reasons why inequality is actually a good thing but this is honestly enough to give the average person a basic idea again this Rabbit Hole runs deep and so let's jump in a little bit further and start looking at just how much damage the equality fallacy has caused we'll start with examples of the equality fallacy in politics the interesting thing is that

18:28 politics is in fact the easiest place where you can find examples of the equality fallacy because they kind of tell you they kind of just flat out admit to it if you look at what politicians say and the laws that actually get ped there's often a very blatant disconnect in the reasoning it's kind of the same old grift of politicians selling Utopia claiming that their policies will have some Grand magical effect that will just fix everything wrong with society and then of course in practice the law they actually get passed is just pure BS it's something else entirely and the most common Connection in the equality fallacy that you're going to see is a Mot and Bailey between all parties should have equal rights being used to defend things like Dei and equity and forced equal outcomes as well as socialism and more welfare programs Etc with Ayan Presley being a pretty good example of this she doesn't even really try to hide the fact that she's guilty

19:13 of this faulty reasoning for example she wants to ban employers from using credit scores which makes no sense because some jobs kind of need you to have good credit like jobs in finance for example and her reasoning of course is that it goes against Dei credit scores have a disproportionately negative impact yada yada y basically it's an unequal outcomes argument then of course when asked how that's Justified she and others who support the bill Retreat to the m and use the equal rights arguments and that is a problem that is where the fallacy of the m and Bailey comes in because these three things Dei unequal outcomes Etc and equal rights are not the same thing at all in fact when you think about it requiring equal outcomes in all aspects of Life contradicts equal rights equal rights the correct take on equal rights means everybody has the equal property rights or in terms of an

19:59 analogy in a game it means means that all players play by the same rules that does not mean that all players win changing a person's L to a w is not when equal rights and again in terms of economic inequality it can actually be a contradiction for instance if you wanted everybody to have the same outcome in wealth well that's not going to happen naturally so the only way to actually fund that as a government status solution would be to forcibly take that away from other people who have more but that implies that those people have less right to their property than the people who it's being given to that's how equal rights can actually contra predict equal outcomes because sometimes it actually is zero some sometimes changing someone's L to a w means you're actually changing the person who genuinely got the W into an L or just in general taking away a scoring system on a test just because some people don't do well

20:44 on that test first of all not only does that not really help the people who aren't doing well on the test because it doesn't address the reason why they aren't doing well on it but it also kind of screws over the people who do do well on the test because now they're less able to prove to potential employers or whoever that they are competent individuals and this can apply to really anything not just the credit scores that Ayan Presley went against the same shoddy reasoning has been used in the past against IQ scoring or even education requirements and so in their attempts to level the playing field by going for equality of outcome they actually end up hindering the people who are performing well like for example gifted education a lot of times far lefties will try to shut down gifted education programs because the students in those programs are disproportionally of some kind of ethnicity or class and so their solution is to say that you can't have gifted education because of

21:30 Dei unequal outcomes Etc but that means they're actually taking away the gifted children's right to seek A Gifted education that's not equality these things are not the same at all and yet it's what politicians will always say they'll always have some kind of commitment to equality on their homepage or something commitment to equal rights but then when it comes to actual policy actual practice it's just Equity Equity Dei equal outcomes equal outcomes which has absolutely nothing to do with equal property rights whatsoever in fact they even contradict each other on a basic level for instance for someone to have property rights to say a house that means for them to truly own their own house they need a greater right to say what happens to that house than what other people have to say otherwise they don't really have the right to their house if somebody else can have a greater say than they do do they and so just the basic concept of property

22:16 rights behind the basic concepts of Liberty ultimately requires a basic level of unequal outcomes so this conflation we see in politics this mottin Bailey between Justice needs to apply equal rights between unequal outcomes is a massive grip and the sad thing is a lot of people still don't really understand just how bad this is it's not just the squad screaming about M disproportionately effects on every little thing that they don't like and trying to pass policy to force equal outcomes everywhere which again necessarily contradicts equal rights but I also see a lot of centrists still not really fully understanding why we need to have freedom of Association for instance they still agree with the Civil Rights era of 1960s but many centrists also recognize that the whole Equity stuff that we see going on isn't actually good it's not actually defending people equal rights but the

23:02 problem is that those civil rights laws are in practice enforced as the same thing as the equity crap those laws are enforced based on equality of outcome not equal rights and this is just something that the average American has been completely brainwashed from birth on they don't realize that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has absolutely nothing to do with equal rights the way that discrimination is proven is by looking at unequal outcomes that is how the courts do it so if you understand why the ma equity and M de stuff is bad then you effectively already understand why the West needs to have freedom of Association again and so that's what you generally see in politics a lot of politicians will claim that things like Dei and equal outcomes are the same thing as Justice and equal rights they will dance between those endlessly in the equality fallacy of the mtin Bailey even though Justice and equal rights

23:47 actually contradicts these things I suspect that politicians will continue this grift for as long as people keep falling for it but let's now look at examples of the equality fallacy and culture in Western culture we've just kind of accepted the fact that equality is a virtue and so the common mod Bailey you'll see within culture is this equality good therefore equality real moralistic fallacy retreating to the mot that too much inequality can have bad outcomes or sometimes not even that sometimes just retreating to inequality bad or perhaps people will use the justification that it's the same thing as equal rights even though as I've just explained it's not equal rights is not when equality real either and so the result is that people will just kind of ignore very obvious differences and mistakenly believe that they're being nice by doing so with the whole transgenders in women's sports being the most recent weird example so as it turns

24:33 out there's pretty big obvious differences in terms of physical ability in the average woman and average man and there was kind of a weird lull in Western culture where we just kind of pretended that this wasn't true I mean everybody knew that it's true everybody still knows that it's true there were a few Prestige seeking weirdos in Academia who attempted to push bad research claiming it wasn't true but most of that research has largely been debunked because again the fact that there's major physical differences on average between what a man and what a woman can do is pretty OB VI it's one of those things where if you see someone trying to deny it you automatically know that you really can't take them seriously but because for the sake of being nice that we tried to ignore that we then ended up with male to female transgenders going into women's sports and we just kind of pretended that the objective reality the objective average difference between a

25:18 man and woman we just kind of pretended that that didn't exist for the sake of good feels and so we pretended that it was all about how you identify and so the result is of course that a lot of MTF transgenders ended up taking women's trophies they ended up consistently getting first place because men again on average hold a very big advantage over women in terms of running and jumping Etc and of course just now recently people started to notice it it's probably one of the reasons people voted against the Democrats last election actually people just kind of know that this isn't true and yet we pretended that it was true anyway because equality feel good and when people pointed out why that was wrong A lot of times people would defend it by saying equal rights for transgenders or that inequality has bad outcomes but the problem is is that doesn't make equality a real thing just because inequality can make some people

26:06 feel bad doesn't make equality real and again it has nothing to do with equal rights and another example of seeing this in culture is often in dating we often want to say oh there's no such thing as a 10 out of 10 or there's no such thing as a 1 out of 10 everybody's equal equality feel good therefore equality real and of course the problem is that nobody actually believes this if you ask people what they want in their ideal partner everybody has their little list some people it's actually a very long list and if you were to take their lists and average it out you'd find out that there's certain things that most women want and certain things that most men want and so when you say that everyone's a 10 what you're really saying is that everyone's also entitled to A10 but you're not nobody's entitled to a date from anybody and nobody's entitled to commitment from anybody either and it's weird because again it's something that's obviously not true if a man is unintelligent and short and

26:52 irresponsible and completely lacking in frame and confidence most women won't find him attractive likewise if a woman is obese and mean and just outright hates men most men are not going to be interested in putting a ring on it and again this is strange this kind of obvious everybody kind of understands that men generally aren't going to ask a woman who is mean to him and hates him to marry him I mean there's a few degenerates out there but it's generally not a thing and yet people pretend that it is we pretend that equality is real because inequality bad but the problem is as I explained earlier trying to force equality where it doesn't exist also has bad outcomes and this is one of them because simply saying that you are a 10 effectively means the same thing as saying that you are entitled to attend it implies that you don't need to actually do anything to improve yourself it implies that you just deserve and should get what you want and that's not

27:39 true you have to actually earn it and when they pretend it's true they stop improving they stop doing what is needed to earn it and as a result surprise surprise they never earn it but anyway let's move on to economics there are way more examples of the equality fallacy when it comes to economics than I'll talk about here so I'll just go over the big one which is that we need to do more socialism because inequality can have bad outcomes which I kind of have already explained why this is wrong in this video so I won't spend too much time on it but here's another example to make it even more clear which is that evidence shows that inequality matters a whole lot less than economic growth when you have economic growth even differences of 1% can result in the nation's poorest living roughly the same quality of life as the nation's richest just given enough time and what this means is that economic growth is by far the best welfare system you can possibly

28:25 have it beats any kind of social welfare program we've ever devised and that's kind of a problem for the Socialists because this claim that inequality can have bad outcomes doesn't actually justify communism at all in fact the best way to get economic growth is less taxes less regulation less government Etc the exact opposite of what socialists do whenever they're in power and while it is true that welfare programs on paper do tend to help the poor in the short run all of this empirical data that shows welfare programs helping them is committing the reasoning error of not properly comparing that data to what things could be if the society focused more on econ iomic growth as opposed to these so-called means tested wealth transfers but what really happens is that while these welfare and benefits programs may help a few people out in the short run it often does so at the cost of tying

29:10 the economy up with regulations as well as higher taxes and more government which disincentivizes investment and thus resulting in less economic growth we've seen this with rent control we've seen this with Medicaid there's also evidence that even basic welfare programs like Snap can disincentivize people from getting or accepting a better job so they can get off snap and then of course there's just the fact that private charity tends to be more efficient in terms of the money it gets actually going to the people who are targeted for the charity than government programs the government is actually less efficient at doing these transfers because remember there's nothing wrong with Charity you can have charity there is no contradiction with taking pity on the poor and helping out the less fortunate in what I am saying the main problem here comes from people trying to use the equality fallacy in this way to justify government fiscal policy some economists specifically Kian economists

29:56 or economists as I like to sometimes call them will often try to point to short-term data and government spending while not properly controlling or comparing that data to a scenario where the government spending didn't happen that is not valid economic reasoning at all or a simpler way to put it is that just because you fed the birds and then you did a study that confirmed that within the next week birds were less likely to die of starvation in the area that does not mean that feeding the birds is a viable long-term strategy for a healthy environment in fact you can even end up with a really silly situation where the seagulls in the area become aggressive and attack anybody who's eating because they become entitled to the food seriously it's a real thing look it up kind of silly really but anyway now that you're all familiar with what the equality fallacy is and how it functions let's move on to a subject that is a little bit harder to spot and something not everyone's quite fully familiar with and that is the

30:42 equality fallacy in Academia now Academia is a lot more complex and generally much higher quality than journalism or politics or just general culture and because of that you'll find the equality fallacy in all of its forms you will see a very complex mot and Bailey dance between all of these arguments sometimes back and forth wor 20 different times in the same study but again the purpose of this video is to peek into the rabbit hole just enough to prove the point and so the most common form of the equality fallacy I see in Academia Beyond just the equity fallacy is usually the false cause fallacy so claiming bad outcomes always are coming from inequality when there's actually evidence suggesting it's something else being swapped with how inequality can have bad outcomes there's actually a little bit of circular reasoning going on there where they assert that inequality can have bad outcomes and therefore this bad outcome was caused by

31:29 inequality and that just kind of goes round and round forever and one particularly hilarious thing you can do to find studies that commit this fallacy is try to search for academic research that blames things on quote unquote heteronormative patriarchy with minor differences these studies largely all do the same thing they find something that they don't like usually an unequal outcome and then they find a way to pin it on what they call heteronormative patriarchy by controlling for only a few variables out of possible thousands one common variable that is almost always left out in all of these studies is time preferences because a lot of what we call heteronormative patriarchy is really just based on cultural values that are proven to have better time preferences or low time preferences which means that there's less value given to immediate gratification and so

32:14 values that have lower time preferences tend to be more sustainable for society this is the real reason why things that we call heteronormative patriarchy such as the nuclear family structure tends to have better outcomes it's just a more future stable family structure that's it it's not some nefarious system that is forcing inequality it's just a better more sustainable long-term choice and so what these studies are doing is they're often just looking at things that are most likely actually being caused by bad choices and instead assuming that it's just caused by inequality which they then of course blame on what they call the heteronormative patriarchy then as far as academic censorship is concerned it usually comes down to IQ studies being associated with some wrong think and so there's some very aggressive demands for censorship in this particular field which is weird because we accept the fact that there is genetic inequality in other aspects of life for examp example it's largely the academic

33:00 consensus that height at least in part is genetic as well as differences in the human musculoskeletal system and we know that these differences provide a very distinct advantage in physical activities and there's very similar evidence on the idea of intellect being heritable for example twin studies genomic studies and adoption Studies have all been done that regularly confirm and reconfirm that there's probably a 40 to 80% heritability Factor when it comes to a parents's IQ and their children's IQ and what we see a lot of in Western academic Fields is people just kind of shying away from this or suggesting aggressive censorship again which isn't how science is supposed to work but another really bizarre common one I see is that every year or so it seems like some new midwit cope is to try and debunk the concept of IQ in general you know they try to debunk the idea that a test filled with

33:47 reasoning based questions can give you a ballpark estimate of someone's reasoning ability yeah it's pretty stupid and so these attempts always end up getting refuted it has been repeatedly proven that g is one of the best measures of a person's intellectual ability and is able to predict objective markers of success better than anything else and no it is not a case of confusing cause and effect nor is it a case of correlation not implying causation that has all been refuted as well the problem here is that the cult of equality has ingrained itself into Western institutions so deeply that people can't tell the difference between what they want to be true and what actually is true and so it's gotten to the point where even in intelligencia there's this constant confirmation bias in favor of worshiping equality people want it to be true and so they find the data that suggests that it's true because it gives them happy

34:32 warm fields and that effectively is where the equality fallacy concludes I think the problem really is that a lot of people innately want fairness but much of humanity still just isn't sure how to get it there's too many people who if they lose the game they want to immediately cry that it wasn't fair and there's too many people who don't even know the difference but the problem really boils down to the fact that we and the Western world have kind of just democratically voted for a state that is built on a lot of the flawed assumptions that we see in the equality fallacy we've propped up equality as some ultimate virtue when the truth is that the line between equality and envy and poor sportsmanship can be very very thin and the result of this is that in our quest for equality we have created a power structure that ironically ensures that true equality the equality where everyone's playing by the same rules

35:18 where everyone has equal property rights aka the only equality that really should matter is ironically the one equality that we've decided does not matter through the mot and Bailey of all these bad arguments being swapped out for these slightly better arguments we've kind of put ourselves in this situation where we don't really know what equality even is anymore in fact if you pay enough attention you'll find out that a lot of politicians when they say equality what they really mean is a system where it's rigged in their favor because we're constantly exchanging different ideas of equality with different justifications of equality we have now reached the end point where equality is kind of a buzzword it's become this unquestionable justification for whatever an authority figure wants you to believe but people don't actually really know what it means anymore because we've muddied the waters so freaking much and yet nobody wants to call it out when these nonsensical

36:04 arguments are being swapped around with each other so much because as a result of the muddied waters any talk about equality is again just automatically unquestionable if you think for yourself as opposed to taking part in the Holy Communion of equality if you call out the fact that these things contradict each other then well that's just the wrong thing and it's just bad because it just is and that's probably the true big tragedy of the equality fallacy it's been going on for so long that the people who worship the SC of equality don't even know what it is they're worshiping anymore anyways that's all I have to say for now although I will be talking about this subject in the future in other videos because again it is a very deep rabbit hole but I hope you enjoyed it so please like comment subscribe and if you really enjoy my content and want to support me you can do so on Kofi subscribe star or by buying some merch or Again by checking out private

36:51 internet access thanks again for watching till next time