People already know that people aren’t equal in skills or talents or abilities. You’re not really saying anything new there. But you are saying that people should be treated inequally by virtue of undefined criteria, and that necessarily requires someone to make a judgment call as to what is valuable and what is not. You’re not following your assertions through to their logical conclusions. Hypotheticals are useful for evaluating proposals to see if the proposals are practical or humane or achievable. If you aren’t sure how your proposal would play out, you’re admitting you haven’t thought it through enough. There isn’t much value in a raw concept with no feasibility.

you being better at math will make you favored for the accounting job

This isn’t always the way it shakes out because there are more factors than skill or merit that determine who has what position. You might be better at math, but you’re also better at cooking, so you get a job as a chef and someone who is worse at math is your accountant, but since it’s their job, they know the accounting laws that apply to your business better.

There isn’t some grand artificial intelligence with a universal database that has categorized all people and their skillsets such that we could easily identify who is better than anyone else at something and equitably apportion those people to those positions and doing so would violate individual freedoms.

What if you’re better at math, but you find being an accountant sucks and you become an artist instead? Should you be treated worse just because you didn’t choose to be an accountant?

Many determinations of “better” will be highly subjective, so it’ll just come down to what the people currently in charge think is of value, and that’s a recipe for unethical discrimination. Sure, we can determine who can run faster, but there’s not an easy measurement for who is a more deserving person if there are limited resources to apportion.

We could have universal health care that allows everyone who otherwise couldn’t afford mental health care to get access to it and then also destigmatize therapy such that it’s not seen as a weakness or shameful necessity. We could encourage compassion and empathy and accommodation rather than judgment and legal repercussions for the numerous non-violent, non-destructive conditions that many fully functional members of society experience.

people are largely responsible for their own respective lots in life

This is called the Just-world fallacy.

Is there a particular declaration of equality that you’re arguing against? I don’t know that I encounter a lot of people who would disagree with your assertion that we’re not equal in ability or traits. That likely seems obvious to a lot of people. When equality is spoken of, I usually find that it’s addressed as an ideal relating to treatment and opportunity. Some people espouse that society should treat all people equally, in the idea that we all have the same human rights, that we all have the most commons needs, we’re all born and die, etc. And treating each other equally is a generally straightforward way to navigate human relationships.

If you focus on the idea that we’re all different as the basis for a value system rather than a factual observation that informs your perceptions, that might lead to some people arguing that being different in some ways means you’re “better” as a person and should be treated better and have more rights or privileges or freedoms over other people.

If we’re categorizing people based on their top speed, yes, an Olympic athlete is likely “better” in that category than an obese guy who doesn’t get much or any exercise. But that category may not be relevant to many people outside of sports and athletic competitions and being better in that category doesn’t make you a better person in general. A fast runner could also beat their spouse or murder people or kick puppies or just generally be a sociopath. And an obese person who doesn’t get much exercise could be a volunteer worker at a children’s cancer ward. So “better” in some categories doesn’t mean “better” over all or in categories that others might value.

Have you read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut? It’s a dystopian short story about a future in which the government attempts to make everyone equal by handicapping people with above average abilities. There’s also a decent movie adaptation called 2081.

https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

https://www.teaching2081.org/

It’s a good story, but it’s arguing against something that as a society, we don’t seem even close to being in danger of. We have large swaths of the population who don’t want people to be equal or perceived as equal and they’re actively pursuing policies that treat people inequally, especially in regard to civil and human rights.

If it works for you, there’s nothing childish or bad about it. We pretend like people in their late teens are supposed to magically emerge as fully functional adults with all the necessary skills to function alone in society. The truth is there are plenty of people who are decades older who have never been fully functional, so finding something that works for you earlier in adulthood is great. Your brain doesn’t stop developing until your mid 20s so don’t assume you’re going to have everything figured out or expect that you can do everything that seems expected of you easily anytime soon.

Find what works for you. Seek advice from people with compassion. Experiment with new things here and there when you feel comfortable doing so to develop new skills and experiences. Find a friend you can roleplay new experiences with, such as awkward social encounters or having to deal with imposing bureaucratic systems.

If nothing else, not capitalizing first letters and proper nouns will just look weird to many readers. If there’s no capitalization in a sentence, I’m inclined to assume the writer accidentally mistyped an incomplete sentence or phrase. Not capitalizing proper nouns will create significant confusion since some proper nouns are also general terms.

“after friday, land is out.”

Is that a reference to land as in earth or is it a reference to someone whose last name is Land?

Making communication more difficult by requiring your reader to spend more effort to parse your intended message might not be a good idea.

No, you see, other people have believed in it so it must be true!

Somebody doth protest too much.

Do you find this weak troll act fulfilling and useful? Good use of your time? Healthy outlet for your emotional issues?

So you are just actively advocating for a worse-than-useless solution that only helps ensure the least favorable party gets more votes while arrogantly pretending you know better than the people who have to live with the results. Got it.

That’s not a denial…

The obvious answer, voting 3rd party doesn’t register with you people.

So you admit you don’t understand first past the post voting systems.

Yes, that’s a subjective perspective on the matter. And…?

I also keep seeing this:

“The progressive congresswoman deserves the heat she’s getting for her vote against a bill that would’ve held back aid to Jerusalem”

People keep calling the amendment a bill, which it is not. Even the PhD author of that article is misconstruing the vote in question despite correctly identifying it as an amendment elsewhere.

AOC voted against the bill that funded Israel. Full stop. Saying otherwise is counterfactual, i.e a lie. Full stop.

You can quibble over the repercussions of the amendment vote. I wouldn’t have voted for or against it personally. But saying she voted for funding Israel is not correct. Saying she funds genocide is not only incorrect but would be defamation if she weren’t a public figure.

But I will ask again, what is the value of attacking AOC on this point? Will it drive voters further to the left? Will it win primaries for progressive candidates? Will it in any way affect the funding of genocide in Gaza? What is the value of this fight? If it’s just feeling self-righteous but doesn’t have any useful results, why pursue it so fiercely? The only people this fight benefits are those who want someone farther right than AOC in office.

That’s what ranked choice voting can get you.

Except if you know the amendment will fail and you know the amendment is a stunt by a racist conspiracy theorist, you can’t be expected to take it seriously.

But again, what’s the endgame for this criticism? She resigns and someone more centrist or corporate or right leaning takes her place? She feels bad and remembers next time to virtue signal meaningless gestures instead of attempting to achieve plausible goals?

So you acknowledge it didn’t have a chance of passing and was thus of completely null value, except as far as you get to use it to attack someone for not virtue signalling your preferred message. And it’s really super important to drag her because doing so will magically help more leftists come to power in the US and topple the authoritarian regime…? What’s your end game on this strategy? You’ll die on a useless hill from a MAGA boot on your face and your last satisfied utterance will be, “at least we told AOC off that one time,” is that it? Do you think this witch hunt will have any useful results?

AOC still voted against blocking military aid to Israel.

No, she didn’t. Any number times zero is zero. She could have voted for an amendment to kick puppies and then voted against the bill and thus ultimately voted against kicking puppies. You don’t seem to understand how bills and amendments work.

What result do you want to happen here?

Do the same give me her voting history of when she opposed funding this genocide.

Literally the bill in question. If you aren’t familiar with the bill the amendment was for, you don’t know what we’re discussing.

and your reply to me was basically plugging your ears shouting “LALALA I Cannot Hear Cannot See…”

No, my reply is that you’re spewing racist conspiracy theories.

kenyian secret-muslim immigrant

Again with the racism and conspiracy theories. You’re not even trying to hide it. You clearly have no moral grounds to criticize other people.

At issue here is the first vote only.

The first vote was meaningless. It was a political stunt amendment by a racist conspiracy theorist. And a single vote for or against the amendment has no chance of affecting whether Israel got funds for more genocide.

This yearly military budget bill always gets passed, without exception, which AOC knows. She knew that, in the end, the bill would get passed despite her nay vote.

It’s really weird that you’re able to see this inevitability, yet you’re not able to also see the inevitable failure of the amendment MTG put forth. This is exactly why all this foaming at the mouth over a doomed amendment vote is so misdirected! It had no practical, functional, or realistic bearing on anything in reality other than for MTG to tell her conspiracy theorist followers that she opposes Jewish people getting more space lasers or however she wants to spin it.

That being the case, why did she vote against removing military aid to Israel?

She explained her reasoning. Why are you asking what she intended when she already explained why? I don’t agree with the reasoning, but it was still a meaningless act.

You’re complaining she put expired ingredients in a meal that she threw out and never served anyone. Meanwhile Trump is dodging Epstein list revelations, ICE is brutalizing and human trafficking (and genociding) immigrants, but at least we have someone to attack and feel morally superior to who literally didn’t fund Israel as was falsely claimed.

I think the claim that she funded or supports funding genocide by Israel is contradicted by the very public and verifiable voting record on the funding bill that continued funding Israel to which she voted nay. The entire premise of the attack is that she did something she didn’t actually do.