4 ms·

The idea of things being a meritocracy has always been a lie, its just perhaps more obvious now than in the past. Tell me when exactly was this golden age of b

by throwaway2048 7y ago

The idea of things being a meritocracy has always been a lie, its just perhaps more obvious now than in the past. Tell me when exactly was this golden age of black people (for instance) in the USA not facing systematic discrimination, because I don't think that one ever arrived. Situations like that cant exist, and still have people claiming with a straight face that the system is a meritocracy.

tomp 7y ago
I really hate this stupid argument. Meritocracy is like freedom and equality - it doesn't exist, and it's fundamentally unstable, so it will never exist, but it's a bright and fair ideal that's very worth striving for. Some people being disadvantaged (by birth, abuse, lack of education, ...) also doesn't retract the argument that meritocracy is useful (despite the whining of social justice warriors), at most it informs us that we should be looking for talent and potential in unexpected places (and nurturing it when we find it). The alternative is: "well there's this one girl that's a sex slave somewhere in the world... FREEDOM IS A FALSE IDEAL, EVERYBODY ABANDON SHIP!!!"
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Its a fine ideal, but plenty of people that massively benefit from the myth that it exists and is the primary way that people "get ahead" in the world, get very angry when you question that fact. Because its not, and the absurd shell games that get played to pretend it is are extremely harmful to society as a whole. You are making a straw man argument that I am "winging" that one person is disadvantaged, therefore the entire system is flawed. That is not the argument I am making. The argument I am making is in fact a majority of the population (Black, white, or otherwise) is greatly harmed by the myth that the American economic system greatly rewards "merit", how many poor white rural people become CEOs?
  - tomp 7y ago
    > myth that the American economic system greatly rewards "merit", how many poor white rural people become CEOs? Um... does anyone actually believe that “myth”? Last American election was a trust fund kid vs wife of former president... so anyone who still thinks it’s “all meritocracy 100% of the time” is beyond stupid. But that doesn’t make it a bad ideal. In fact, I’d say that, if anything, that would be an argument that we need more meritocracy (again, just like equality and freedom).
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      We completely agree about that, the problem is that people pretend its already the case, when its so obviously, clearly not.
- pm90 7y ago
  You may hate the argument because it doesn’t fit your neat view on what your country or society is. But from a purely factual, scientific perspective, studies have repeatedly shown that black families fare worse on all indicators of economic and social wealth. And systemic and widespread racism in America has been the most pervasive cause for that. Meritocracy is great, but not when you start with unequal conditions, and make it difficult at every stage in their lives for folks to escape their predicament and do better.
  - chongli 7y ago
    The way I see it, proponents and opponents of meritocracy are arguing for/against different things. Proponents of meritocracy see it as an ideal to strive for based on the idea that the most competent people should fill the most important roles. It's about trying to make society better through competence. Opponents of meritocracy see it as a cover for privilege. They see people who are unfairly privileged using meritocracy as an excuse to reward themselves for their privilege. This is how I would characterize the debate, anyway. It's hard to say whether anyone is arguing that only incompetent people should fill important roles. Nor do I see anyone trying to claim privilege doesn't exist at all, that everyone starts from an equal blank slate. Ultimately, I don't see any way of breaking this impasse. At least not unless we succeed in creating a post-scarcity society where rewards for filling important roles are at best symbolic and everyone has all their needs met, regardless of ability.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  I think the issue with meritocracy is when people assume meritocracy exists and then operate completely ignoring that there is no meritocracy. See- the original use was mocking the idea that you can assume you can judge someone's apparent merits in a vacuum.

tomp 7y ago

I really hate this stupid argument. Meritocracy is like freedom and equality - it doesn't exist, and it's fundamentally unstable, so it will never exist, but it's a bright and fair ideal that's very worth striving for. Some people being disadvantaged (by birth, abuse, lack of education, ...) also doesn't retract the argument that meritocracy is useful (despite the whining of social justice warriors), at most it informs us that we should be looking for talent and potential in unexpected places (and nurturing it when we find it). The alternative is: "well there's this one girl that's a sex slave somewhere in the world... FREEDOM IS A FALSE IDEAL, EVERYBODY ABANDON SHIP!!!"

throwaway2048 7y ago
Its a fine ideal, but plenty of people that massively benefit from the myth that it exists and is the primary way that people "get ahead" in the world, get very angry when you question that fact. Because its not, and the absurd shell games that get played to pretend it is are extremely harmful to society as a whole. You are making a straw man argument that I am "winging" that one person is disadvantaged, therefore the entire system is flawed. That is not the argument I am making. The argument I am making is in fact a majority of the population (Black, white, or otherwise) is greatly harmed by the myth that the American economic system greatly rewards "merit", how many poor white rural people become CEOs?
- tomp 7y ago
  > myth that the American economic system greatly rewards "merit", how many poor white rural people become CEOs? Um... does anyone actually believe that “myth”? Last American election was a trust fund kid vs wife of former president... so anyone who still thinks it’s “all meritocracy 100% of the time” is beyond stupid. But that doesn’t make it a bad ideal. In fact, I’d say that, if anything, that would be an argument that we need more meritocracy (again, just like equality and freedom).
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    We completely agree about that, the problem is that people pretend its already the case, when its so obviously, clearly not.
pm90 7y ago
You may hate the argument because it doesn’t fit your neat view on what your country or society is. But from a purely factual, scientific perspective, studies have repeatedly shown that black families fare worse on all indicators of economic and social wealth. And systemic and widespread racism in America has been the most pervasive cause for that. Meritocracy is great, but not when you start with unequal conditions, and make it difficult at every stage in their lives for folks to escape their predicament and do better.
- chongli 7y ago
  The way I see it, proponents and opponents of meritocracy are arguing for/against different things. Proponents of meritocracy see it as an ideal to strive for based on the idea that the most competent people should fill the most important roles. It's about trying to make society better through competence. Opponents of meritocracy see it as a cover for privilege. They see people who are unfairly privileged using meritocracy as an excuse to reward themselves for their privilege. This is how I would characterize the debate, anyway. It's hard to say whether anyone is arguing that only incompetent people should fill important roles. Nor do I see anyone trying to claim privilege doesn't exist at all, that everyone starts from an equal blank slate. Ultimately, I don't see any way of breaking this impasse. At least not unless we succeed in creating a post-scarcity society where rewards for filling important roles are at best symbolic and everyone has all their needs met, regardless of ability.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I think the issue with meritocracy is when people assume meritocracy exists and then operate completely ignoring that there is no meritocracy. See- the original use was mocking the idea that you can assume you can judge someone's apparent merits in a vacuum.