4 ms·

No, I'm not implying a logical disconnect; I'm saying that if your goal is diversity, the notion of a "meritocracy" gets in the way. More in my comment at http

• ebfe 11y ago
  The goal isn't diversity, though. The goal is meritocracy, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables meritocracy.
  • jdp23 11y ago
    Speak for yourself. Many people who benefit from the current systemic biases would agree with you; many people who don't -- and some think society as a whole would be better if the systemic biases were reduced -- see thins differently. > The goal is meritocracy, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables meritocracy. In other words "The goal is anti-diversity, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables the anti-diversity goal."
    • AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > In other words "The goal is anti-diversity, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables the anti-diversity goal." Meritocracy is not anti-diversity. Meritocracy is correlated with diversity. Choosing meritocracy where they diverge is nothing more than accepting that diversity is not the one true goal of all things.
    • douche 11y ago
      The goal is to get shit done. If diversity enables you to get shit done better than non-diversity, then let's be diverse. The old great metaphor for America was that it was a "melting pot." The metaphor comes from smelting. When you smelt metal, you're not promoting diversity - you're creating a homogeneous alloy. You also skim off the slag and throw it out. It's not a particularly pleasant metaphor when you think about it.