Let’s face it: Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron combined hit 1,469 home runs (755 for Aaron, 714 for Ruth) and it wasn’t fair! And finally someone’s doing something about it.
The New Encyclopedia of Baseball Equity, published by Social Justice Equity Anti-Racist Press, has revised official baseball statistics to redistribute Aaron’s and Ruth’s home runs among “deserving Minorities”–even some who never played baseball at all.
“Here we have damn near 15 hundred homers hit by just those two guys,” said Equity Editor Lula Ponzi. “How unfair is that! But records are made not to be broken, but to be set straight! In the interests of Social Justice, we have arbitrarily selected 100 deserving persons who will, from now on, each be credited with 15 of those home runs. And not just major league baseball players, but also college students, sex workers, and a man who thinks he’s a poached egg. And then we’ll see about all the other home runs hogged by the likes of Foxx, Mays, Mantle–until every player who ever played has exactly the same number of home runs. And that, my fiends, is Equity!”
The publisher is also pursuing a project of granting Ph.D.’s to every person physically present in the United States.
8 comments on “Redistribute the Home Runs!”
Even the wokest of the woke can slip sometimes. Lula, dear, if someone thinks eggself to be a poached egg, then calling that egg a man is a case of misspeciesism and deadnaming. Fie, for shame! 😄
It’s about time someone did this – not fair a minority has the most talent. Next, we need to level the income field – give all of Gates & Zuckerburg’s money to everyone residing in the USA so they can have enough money to buy a burger and a malt/shake.
I have received 15 home runs, for I identify as a Deserving Minority Black River (most of the time), and a fresh water pond, and black and white swan on other days. And my preferred pronouns are King River, Queen River and Majestic Swan.
A few weeks ago I found, and now enjoy listening to Matt Walsh and his response, with witty, insightful, to the point, hard-hitting commentaries, which deal with these kinds of absurdities, evil, and insanity. His movie documentary, “What is a Woman” points out so clearly, the ideology behind this mental illness and irrationality. And he does so, mostly by asking simple questions, defining words, and examining and scrutinizing their beliefs and dogma.
Oh, those question that never get asked. Like “Why do you want this?”
Equity, what an idea. If the USA government had the power to take every single thing; money, land, houses, and in short, everything each owned, from all those who lived in the USA, and distribute it equally among every single man, woman, and child, what would the outcome be, let’s say 10 years from now?
For the most part, nothing really would have changed, for the poor would probably be poor once again, and the rich, would probably be rich once again. Most rich people (not necessarily their children who inherited their wealth) have a different mindset, ambition, urge, and passion, which is lacking within many who are poor.
Yes, and also the people who are “poor” in a given year may no longer be poor ten years later, since many of the poor are young people just starting out who then become better off as they gain work experience and become better off. Similarly, the people who are now “rich” may not be as rich ten years from now. Thomas Sowell has written a lot on this topic, about how the “poor” and “rich” percentiles over the years are treated by Marxists as consisting of exactly the same people, when in fact the revenue numbers remain the same but the flesh-and-blood members of a given percentile differ from year to year.
However, there really are generationally poor segments of the population who simply haven’t been taught good life habits, or who are genetically unable to perform in high paying sectors of the economy — which aren’t necessarily high tech, considering that some construction workers (for example) or artisans make more money than IT specialists.
The flow of the economy is far more complex — and human — than the Marxists would have it.
It’s very hard for Marxists to understand human beings. We might say impossible.
This is a good analogy against socialism