The Interchangeability of "Equity" and "Equality"

They're not [period]

equality (n) -  the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunity (Oxford Languages)

 equity (n) - the quality of being fair and impartial (Oxford Languages)

Well that sounds just great. But even with - what appears to be - a relatively pair of immutable definitions they are not the same.

Equality is literally a "state of being." Equity is action oriented. It is how you treat another person.
In standard English, equity and  equality are NOT interchangeable. 

Moral Hazard

Society has moved actively into the dangerous realm of mass moral hazard.

moral hazard (n) - lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected by is consequences.

Organizations both government, private, and semi-governmental are comforted by the protected virtually signalling. As long as they signal that they are for making people descended from those who were prior oppressed and are by de facto currently oppressed by their definition, then no cost can be spared, and those descended from perceived former oppressors must bare those costs. And definitions be damned. The virtue signalers and guarantors of wholeness will create new language out of old a la George Orwell's 1984.

Look at this explanation of the newspeak, which the definitions have actually been accepted by the full spectrum of politically leanings - though conservatives do not generally accept the goal.

"Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome." - Marin Health and Human Services, Marin County, CA

What a load of crap. But that is where we are. Not only are the real definitions not equal, but the lunatics running the redistribution show have redefined EQUITY. 

Moral Rectification

What should conservatives do? Forget that! What should truth seekers do (Who should be all of us.)? Take the language back. Tell virtue signalers and woke/fake social-justice warriors  and thieves to stop twisting reality.

The Existential Danger of Defending Biden

 To defend the Biden administration is morally damaging. 

It takes so much lying, redirection, and even sheer stupidity to make the Biden junta look effective, responsible, normal, or even reasonable.

I felt bad for Jen Psaki, even though she has been a government shill for quite a while. She was honest enough to know that she was full of crap, when she defended the actions of the Biden junta.

And the same sort of goes for Karine Jean-Pierre. But - but - Jean-Pierre is well out of her depth. She is not smart enough to handle the room, nor does she understand he place as press secretary. She is too quick to anger. And she is too quick to push off questions to the White House counsel.

To be fair Jen Psaki did anger at times and was unfoundedly condescending, because she was peddling in lies and half truths. But Karine Jean-Pierre isn't smart enough, too quick to anger, and possibly to inexperienced for her job. So maybe her intelligence is not a question, though I think anyone with some media experience would be quicker on her feet. Maybe she has just not built up the skills.

For both of them, it seems that they are in moral danger for lying to the world about the general ineptitude, partisanship, portrayed wokeness, special-interest favoritism, etc, etc, etc. How they represent the dangerous Biden junta has helped Biden's handlers to get people killed in Ukraine, Afghanistan, and the U.S. of A., damage people's health through COVID and isolated environmental disasters, destabilized the economy, made almost every U.S. citizen poorer, etc.

photo: CNBC