this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
525 points (98.5% liked)

World News

45351 readers
4327 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Denmark and the Netherlands criticized Trump’s demand that foreign companies with U.S. government contracts eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Denmark called for a coordinated EU response, labeling the move a potential trade barrier.

The Trump administration sent letters to European firms—including in France and Belgium—warning they must comply with a DEI ban or risk losing U.S. contracts.

European officials condemned the letters, defending DEI as essential to corporate responsibility. The EU Commission is reviewing the situation, while the U.S. State Department called the effort a compliance measure.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (7 children)
[–] huppakee@lemm.ee 37 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Nice thanks.

If you want you can add it to a post with ![alt text]() like this:

equality vs equity

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 53 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The obligatory follow up image

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or, replace the chain link fence with a dodgy internet stream of the game. It's unjust that some people don't get to see the game, and other people who paid for a ticket do.

(only partially joking)

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You see freeloaders. I see people watching a game. Could just be a park? There's no stands or tickets or anything.

Like a rorschach test revealing some cognitive bias. Maybe some introspection is in order.

I'm not perfectly clear on your point, but it read like only people who have money should get to watch at all?

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago

If it's just a park, why aren't the spectators in the park?

I think the original is just meant to be a simple concept without a fully fleshed out world. In the true original version, it's only meant to differentiate between equality and equity. It does that by showing that equality gives everyone the same resources, but equity focuses more on ensuring everybody has the same outcomes.

By changing the wall into a chain-link fence and labelling that as justice, it basically opens the door to asking more questions about this world being depicted. Why is there a wall in the first place? In most cases when you have spectators at a sporting event who have to stand on something to see over a wall, it's because it's a professional sporting event that sells tickets, and doesn't want people who haven't bought tickets to be able to see the event.

If justice is removing the wall and replacing it with a chain-link fence people can see through, what does that mean for the world of professional sports? Are people who didn't buy tickets entitled to view the game regardless of buying tickets to see it? If you take that concept more broadly, should people be able to access any good or service they want without having to pay for it?

I'm mostly just making fun of the over simplified world depicted in the meme.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)