But in all seriousness- what’s the difference? Despite having gone to American public school I learned basic math (arithmetic for y’all across the pond...) so I’m really capable with numbers that aren’t easily divisible by ten since most things in life don’t work out so cleanly anyway. So we are going to give distance in a whole number for a large unit- followed by a decimal or fraction of a unit for anything that doesn’t fit a whole large unit wether it’s metric or not. Most people remember and use the measurements they actually use regularly. People who don’t know how far a mile or kilometer are- don’t generally need to. Because even if you know how many units that is- do you intuitively know what that actually is? Can you draw a rough meter or foot by hand unguided? I know a 10mm bolt when I see one because I’ve seen a lot. A sports star knows the length of their field intuitively and a carpenter knows an inch or centimeter intuitively.

I do notice that many fresh immigrants from
Places without such concepts in common life often do not use dividers- which is understandable- and having not tallied it formally I do not believe they do so at a much higher or higher at all rate to the general public. All in all though- I doubt offense was intended, but logically the original joke reads as though it suggests that manners are a “white” concept as opposed to a universal concept of which the particulars might vary culture to culture or through sub culture. So on the whole- I can’t support the idea that using supermarket dividers is a “white” thing to do. My anecdotal perceptions do not support it either and I would need evidence and statistical data to even support the conclusion that “whites” use of dividers is higher or highest of any number of groups we could delineate.

These are rarely mildly humorous, usually just sort of “filler,” but I have to agree I can’t get behind this one. In the comments below the OP states he is only “allowed” to make fun of white people. However- if using the divider at a grocery store is a “white thing,” this implies it is not a common behavior of “non whites.” The divider exists as a courtesy to other customers and the cashier. The implication here is that grocery store manners or concerns for the checker are somehow exclusive or belonging to “whites.” With these things personal experience varies- but having been shopping since before it was common for every store to have a conveyor- in my life I haven’t noticed a particular propensity for any race or ethnicity to eschew dividers.

Lol. Beat me to it.

So- fun fact. There are laws on how loud a commercial can actually be. The previous law held that a commercial couldn’t have a higher average volume than that of the show preceding it. Loophole time- if the show has a single very loud moment, the average volume for the program spikes. Another favorite of commercials? Simply include silence. A simple example: If you have 20 seconds of commercial air slot, and use the first 2.5 and last 2.5 as silence, like a blank screen- it will hardly be noticed and seem like a “transition” between slots- but 25% of your commercial is now dead silence. Add any pauses between dialog etc. now you can increase the volume of the actual noise by that amount above the average volume of the program so that it is very loud. They compress the dynamic range of the sound as well so that every piece of the commercial is at this maximum volume. This the noise level is measured the same but it is much “louder” to the human ear.

We can identify these problems really easily because it is highly statistically unlikely that a single person would be naturally that much more able than any other let alone an entire group over another. Knowing there is a problem doesn’t prove what that problem is. We have to dig deeper and look to what things are different for each group and why. Once identified we have to start trying to implode by solutions tailored to bridge that gap between what we found one group was doing that the other wasn’t that makes the difference in success. If what we found was largely that there was either not a single contributing factor or that the primary differences were matters of externally imposed or generational hardship- we must try to rectify those root causes. Once we eliminate those factors and reassess the situation after several generations- we can get a better picture of wether the two groups overall performances are closer together or not and adjust as needed.

We know that the average person will not offer much of any challenge to a pro athlete in their sport. But we also know that among pro athletes the competition tends to be close. Among untrained average persons they too will mostly perform closely to each other. Some outliers will be worse than the “norm” and some will be better- but only one in a generation, if that, of untrained persons will perform anywhere near the level of a pro athlete. So- armed with this information- we can automatically be skeptical of any person who is doing 4x or greater better than the next average guy. When we can observe across an entire segment of the population that they are all on average doing better by these levels than another segment on average- there is a definitive problem.

People are people. Wether we are talking about across races and cultures or wether we are talking about across a group of “similar” people however we want to define similar- there is a simple truth of humanity- we are all very close together more or less. In a group sample of 100/10000/10000000 etc- where ages and health levels etc are in a reasonable range, the overwhelming majority of people given a measurable task will all score very close to each other. It’s intuitively true as well and history will show us that true prodigy or genius is a rare thing. Very few people will perform a task 2x 4x 8x better than the next best person in a large sample. In pro sports there are legends of their day who didn’t generally do so much better compared to their peers as to totally outclass every possible opponent. Because we are human

In the extreme there are computers. All sorts of businesses already use automated systems and more sophisticated ones are being developed to address issues of bias algorithms- but in short where a properly designed and implemented, externally monitored digital system is used for things like screening applicants for jobs- bias can theoretically be greatly reduced and eventually eliminated in selection processes. These are examples of individual bias of course. Social bias is a little more tricky. However the start is always the same. We listen when a person says they are in pain, investigate the situation. Now- you mention the complexities of differing lives. You’re correct. As we covered- lives are not interchangeable in equivalence. Each is unique. We can’t mathematically quantify them. HOWEVER- there is one simple fact unless one believes in eugenics or theories of racial intelligence etc...

So if a person is unconsciously bias they may be giving more cake to one group out of a factor they don’t realize. Once we recognize the problem or likely potential of a problem, we can be cognizant and work at avoiding the specific problem. A big part of that is honesty. A person must be honest with themselves and everyone involved must be honest as possible. Another is openness. Openness to admit that even if no malice was meant a harm was done, and an openness to change and self monitor as well as take external guidance on when one is behaving that way.

... or aren’t being understood, we can speak with the groups and work on building a style of communications which will allow the blues to feel comfortable or be able to ask for what they want while making sure the reds understand. Now- we may uncover that there is just a bias of some sort. Things like that happen and aren’t always malicious. Advertisers and artists use color combinations and various tricks of optics and perspectives which they know will generally effect humans a certain way. Architects and floor planners often set up spaces in a way that will “direct” people using inherent bias, and those in films and entertainment are masters of understanding how to make people like or dislike characters, suspect them or think they are innocent. So we have a pretty good guide on factors which can cause bias and how to influence bias as well as how to identify it.

The first and easiest tool is to listen. People suffering or feeling they are tend to be vocal. So first we have to listen to people. Now- just because someone FEELS treated a way doesn’t make it so. The next step is to determine if there is some sort of signal that there could be a problem. As an example- Jim is on the blue team. He claims that Malory who is serving cake is giving bigger slices to the red team. Now we need data. So we can sample how much cake each person has and see if any group has more. This alone is proof of nothing. But let’s say the red team do have bigger slices. Ok. Now we need more information. We need to talk to the members of the red team and blue team. Did some people not want cake? Did some ask for bigger slices and some not? If we find the data is showing us that some external factor is causing the reds to get more cake- we can identify it. If it’s as simple as the blues aren’t asking for more...

Lol. Who runs barter town?

@catfluff- thank you. We know some people will do better than others at a thing. This is natural. We know some will try harder and the heart of most systems is one which seeks to reward people based upon their abilities. However it is a logical fallacy then to assume that a persons place is dictated by their abilities alone. If a person is obstructed from leveraging their full abilities then they cannot reach the point where they OR society is benefiting from that person as much as capable. The goal of equality or whatever word a person wants to use for the concept, is to identify the barriers we are placing in front of people that stop the realization of potential and remove those obstacles. If a person is working to remove obstacles that shouldn’t be there that is work they could be using to reach their potential for the good of all instead. It doesn’t just harm them but all of us.

In short- it’s on you. If you can’t or simply don’t want to go it isn’t the end of the world. It’s a high school dance. There are cultures that don’t have prom as part of it. They grow up just fine and don’t regret not going because they never built it up in their mind as anything significant, might not have ever heard of prom. If you’re prone to regrets and “fomo” then going if you can to save yourself that later might be prudent. Go if you want, don’t go if you don’t- mostly you miss some possible memories and having prom stories to tell (which don’t tend to come up often as an adult...)

... but here is the catch- it can be a cultural touchstone. It can be something you don’t think you’ll enjoy and you do, or you don’t think will mean anything to you but later on when you are older the memories we look back on as significant aren’t always the things we thought were a big deal at the time. So you might not care or think you’ll care now and then care later. So- wether you think you’ll care or not... if you aren’t doing anything else that night better, and the cost isn’t too much for you, it’s safer to go and not have your mind blown than to stay at home like you could any night at any age and then regret it.

No one can say. You’re only “missing out” if you want to do something and don’t. Prom is the formal event of most high schools and for many its a sort of last chance to be that age and with all their friends and class mates at once. It’s a dance. There’s music and sometimes food and drinks. You dress up. You talk and dance. There might be awards and speeches. It is one night and whatever money you want to pay for tickets, transport, clothes, etc. It’s significance is in your head. You are the only one who can decide if prom is a big deal to you, and if you think you’d enjoy it....

Lol. @scatmandigno- Tina Turner might approve of the solution- but Thunderdome creates a world where “might makes right,” not a world where the best ideas and ways are worked out but where those with the strength to impose their will control all. Also- in the titular movie the thunderdome was a puppet show. The real power and control was still out of the hands of the people, and the “duel” system served those in power and was abused as a tool of control. @famousone- it didn’t really work on the old days. That’s a big part of why it was eliminated. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/duel-104161025/

There will always be challenges to every life and each individual will face different challenges by virtue of personality, genetics, etc. but we can eliminate artificial blockades to people being able to live their lives. We can tear down institutions and ways of thinking which oppose the ability of others to love their lives. We can recognize the unique challenges faced by larger groups of people and take steps to eliminate those challenges so that we can move towards a society which doesn’t put undue hurdles in people’s paths.

We can play word semantics all day. An X and a Y are clearly not identical and yet can be equal in value. That’s what is meant by equality. Not that all people need or want the same things. Not that all people think and feel the same or that you should French kiss your plumber or pay your spouse for their time because of some ill conceived concept that says equality means what you do in one case you must do for all cases. At its core equality means giving every single life equal value. That no life is inherently worth more than another. At a most fundamental level that means working towards a society that ensures equal opportunity for all in all aspects of life.