First World Problems

``Minority'' is not a universal statement but a conditional one.

Now, before the mob grabs pitchforks, let me be a bit more precise---I mean this in a probabilistic sort of way. The concept of what a ``majority'' or ``minority'' is depends on the population in which we are determining the subset of. So for instance, say one is in America. Then people of Chinese ethnicity (very loosely defined as being people descended from China up to five generations ago) are in the minority as compared to the population that makes up the geo-polity that is ``America'', even though people of Chinese ethnicity in China is close to 100% [by my definition above].

In short, the concept of majority and minority depends very heavily on the definitions that are used. This is no small matter, and can affect the way in which the conversations of privilege and disenfranchisement are conducted. To a large extent, public policy is guided by how these definitions are determined, and I think that part of the engagement between the national governing bodies and their citizens should include alignment of these definitions so as to ensure that all citizens [that the governing body serves] are treated fairly.

That brings us to another tricky point: what is the definition of ``fairness''? There are two big concepts that have gained a consensus in their meanings, that of equality (everyone is given the same resources/opportunities) and of equity (an acknowledgement that everyone comes from different circumstances and therefore needs to have different resources/opportunities allocated to get the same outcome).

Crudely, meritocracy can be considered a philosophy of equality, while affirmative action can be considered a philosophy of equity.

Both are ``fair'' depending on what one prioritises same-ness for. My current working hypothesis is that there is no single eternal mortal governance system that is without flaws (because people are always actively gaming the system for their own personal benefits instead of playing ``nice''), and because of that, equality or equity as the measure of fairness is something that needs to be re-examined ever so often, with neither philosophy absolutely dominating the other.

Going back to the matter, the concept of establishing ``fairness'' for minority peoples in a society. At some level, I think that the over-arching consensus despite either philosophies of fairness is that people are treated without specific preference or negative bias, that the behavioural choice of those who are acting under the aegis of officialdom be one that is physical evidence driven and defensible as being unbiased. This means that those who act in official capacity will stay within the rules of engagement, and within the rules of decency, despite who they are interacting with. This is a much lower bar than requiring that everyone in a society treat each other in a civil fashion based on observed actions instead of inner prejudices.

That is why there is a lot of anger against police officers in the United States that seem to behave according to their inner prejudice instead of basing it on the more defensible rules of engagement of law enforcement. But to be fair, such misbehaviour isn't limited to just some police officers in the US; it's just that the US being relatively transparent in their media about what is going on in their country means that any blemish can easily get scrutinised and magnified at a global scale. I can safely say that there are other countries and territories that have similar or worse problems, but considering that the current media juggernauts are still Western technology companies, it will be hard to notice/see them.

But human governance is hard. I'm glad that justice eventually turns up [in the mortal world]. That said though, even if such human justice never turns up in our life-times, at some level one can hope that God will enact His morality on those who sin. But what He does specifically, and when He does it to whom isn't for us to know---faith requests that we seek comfort in knowing that a moment's folly with no repentance is stacked against the eternity and awesomeness that is God's wrath, and that His Will be done.

That alone allows me to sleep at night knowing that even though I'm but a mote, it will all be well in the end. And as long as it isn't well, well, it isn't the end.

------

In other news, I think I'll head out of the apartment today to do something different. Gonna be bringing Eileen-II out as well, though not sure if I will just stick with reading or if I will do some kind of programming as well. I'm also uncertain what kind of day it is, but part of me wants to go to my favourite bar to hangout partly because it is much closer, and partly because unlike my favourite sushi place, it is open at odd hours, meaning that there are way fewer people to worry about.

Then there's that craving for Tex-Mex food that I feel like I need to deal with.

So many first world problems huh.

Alright, enough of ranting for now. Till the next update.

P.S.: I think I'll head to my favourite bar for reading, beer, and luncheon meat fries.