3 ms·

At least inheritance was honest - you didn't do anything to deserve it, and everybody knew it. Meritocracy is a lie, but it's sold as a feel-good truth: you co

At least inheritance was honest - you didn't do anything to deserve it, and everybody knew it. Meritocracy is a lie, but it's sold as a feel-good truth: you could just come from the ghetto, work hard, and by gosh, be successful! Of course that isn't the way it plays out almost ever - we tell ourselves that the supremely rare few who it does work out for could be everyone else if they just WORKED HARD. It's a LIE. Meanwhile, we've accepted this disgusting fiction, and we place the blame squarely on REGULAR PEOPLE - any system that requires you to be exceptional to succeed (or even have food security!) is a failure, but one that cloaks the actions of the inheritance class as "merit" (as they are best able to, of course, "compete" - with coaches, perfect nutrition, educational trips, etc) is MORE insidious and evil - and it doesn't actually displace that same inheritance class! The technically literate, ironically, eat that meritocratic shit up for some reason. The same people who built surveillance capitalism, destroyed the poor with the "gig" economy because it always "seemed to work for them!", built the methodology of tracking everyone's persuasions and beliefs online to be used for propaganda or ethnic violence, who repackaged sub-prime mortgage suffering as a "data science" problem. Tech people, especially those who believe in "meritocracy", are so painfully blind, they don't even understand that the wheel will come around for our skill set - we're in a weird period of history where our technical skills are extremely profitable. Rather than making the world better, we've caused the kind of damage that drives a stake in the heart of our very society. Very Promethean. If we were as wise as we were smart, we wouldn't be here - we're the brightest fuckwits in the whole world.

mikk14 7y ago
Actually inheritance has a lot of merits, even though they're mostly for societies with poor general education. Who do you want to be ruled by? A person without any education and experience, or somebody who has been nurtured surrounded by diplomats and rulers for their entire life? Of course it's a roll of the die. Of course you might end up with a cretin or a criminal. Of course it's made worse by inbreeding which comes with inheritance. But it's still the best roll of the die you have.
tomp 7y ago
> Meritocracy is a lie, but it's sold as a feel-good truth: you could just come from the ghetto, work hard, and by gosh, be successful! Of course that isn't the way it plays out almost ever - we tell ourselves that the supremely rare few who it does work out for could be everyone else if they just WORKED HARD. It's a LIE. Just one example is worth having a meritocratic system, IMO. (Btw, meritocracy isn't based on hard work, just on output - whether it's genetic, or a result of effort, or whatever is irrelevant.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
- analognoise 7y ago
  We set the bar above where regular people can succeed, and claim ONE example 'validates' meritocracy? Even with all the trash I listed about it? It's a lie and a shit belief.

mikk14 7y ago

Actually inheritance has a lot of merits, even though they're mostly for societies with poor general education. Who do you want to be ruled by? A person without any education and experience, or somebody who has been nurtured surrounded by diplomats and rulers for their entire life? Of course it's a roll of the die. Of course you might end up with a cretin or a criminal. Of course it's made worse by inbreeding which comes with inheritance. But it's still the best roll of the die you have.

tomp 7y ago

> Meritocracy is a lie, but it's sold as a feel-good truth: you could just come from the ghetto, work hard, and by gosh, be successful! Of course that isn't the way it plays out almost ever - we tell ourselves that the supremely rare few who it does work out for could be everyone else if they just WORKED HARD. It's a LIE. Just one example is worth having a meritocratic system, IMO. (Btw, meritocracy isn't based on hard work, just on output - whether it's genetic, or a result of effort, or whatever is irrelevant.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

analognoise 7y ago
We set the bar above where regular people can succeed, and claim ONE example 'validates' meritocracy? Even with all the trash I listed about it? It's a lie and a shit belief.