6 ms·

I dont know if feeling threatened but aware this person’s contribution was not the reason for the naming but the fact that black people were supressed. It’s a g

I dont know if feeling threatened but aware this person’s contribution was not the reason for the naming but the fact that black people were supressed. It’s a generous move but not highly meritocratic. People might have a problem or two with that. I want to remind them we dont live in a meritocratic society anyway and the powerful snatch the merit away like a giant magnet. It will naturally bruise some egos and pump up some other ones and appear to make a bit of justice. The question is, will black americans be treated as second class citizens in 10, 20, 50 years from now?

Thorentis 6y ago
> I want to remind them we dont live in a meritocratic society The reason I love the sciences is that in general, people are more meritocratic in those circles compared to others. I've found especially in scientific academia that people are far more meritocratic compared to other disciplines. This also applies at science/engineering companies. No, not at all levels (the more business-y you get, the less of a meritocracy it becomes). But usually team-leads, senior engineers, etc. rise because of merit. Always exceptions, but in general. Much more than as an accounting firm where you rise because you know somebody who knows somebody. Unfortunately, as time goes on, I've seen academic circles in sci&eng, and especially tech companies (and silicone valley in general) become much more interested in stay relevant, keeping up with social trends and movements, and appearing progressive. You see this with all the FAANG companies calmoring to be the first to speak out against some injustice or another, or be the first to take a stand on Their Platform(TM). And with this, the meritocracy has slowly declined. You don't rise in a company because you're a skilled engineer - you can rise because you're a token minority. Or because you're the most outspoken on a social injustice and can see a way for your company to solve it (sorry, profit from it). You can be rewarded because you were the first (insert random minority here) to solve a problem or do something that plenty of other people had already done. Rather than celebrating scientific advancement, we're now celebrating the type of people making that advancement. What next, the first black woman to clone a GitHub repo? Let's name the GitHub HQ after that.
- tartoran 6y ago
  People who come to surface are either genial or narcisistic prize seekers. A lot of white people worth mentioning were forgotten because others trampled on them. Don’t be so sure it’s so meritocratic, thats just a myth
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    Most Nobel prize winners to date have been white. Would you say the majority of them sought out the prize? I've read about many of them, and most seem to have just had a great discovery that was awarded on merit. There will always be outliers that do things for the awards, but it's not a generialisation I've seen in the sciences. Should we start giving more Nobel prizes to black people just because of the color of their skin, or should we continue giving the Nobel prize to objectively high achievers?
    - Ar-Curunir 6y ago
      a lot of Nobel Prizes in the sciences just go to the high-profile Professors that lead projects, and not to the grad students that do most of the labour.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      Just how do you think the Nobel committee decides which work to look at? I don't think they need to be meeting racial quotas for prizes, but my guess is that there is a lot of work to be done in the system that promotes and nominates candidates and those systems in place that decide who and what gets published.
- larcrimacida 6y ago
  You sound like a man who thinks they diserve recognition yourself and seem to be jealous. Check out your ego, you might become a more beautiful person if you shed some of it
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    Not at all. I have achieved very little in my life, and will mostly likely spend my life reading about the great achievements of others. I enjoyed my time at university seeing the success of others and helping where I could, and I enjoy my quiet job where I can come home and forget about it and spend time with family. You made a very big assumption about me, based purely on my preference for working environment and social environment. There is nothing jealous about wanting to see people rewarded based on merit.
glosses 6y ago
Doesn't this go both ways? Is it really more meritocratic to choose someone who made a greater contribution if they were given significantly better opportunities throughout their life to achieve it? Can you even judge merit if not everyone is given an equal start?
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  The problem your opposition sees is that: It is a gross generalization and on an individual basis there is no way to check or know if that ______ person had equal opportunities or they didn’t. The problem with generalized appropriations but localized relief is that unfairness is vividly unbearable to those who are impacted. Imagine if race ______ gets 20 more points in an exam than the rest because they just happen to be a part of a minority. That would be infuriating to a lot of people who took that exam. It’s no fault of ours - this is a natural reaction of all humans. Now, if you’re not taking that exam, that might sound very benevolent. Life is like an exam in some ways. If everyone can take the exam, that would be great. Some can’t even take it, and that where the focus should be - eliminate poverty, inspire people to work hard, and enable people to go to college. Imagine for a moment - you’re laid off, your family depends solely on you to survive. You’ve interviewed and you think you got the job only to realize that a minority person took it instead only because of the color of their skin. Would you be ok with that(assuming it’s true that there was no meritocracy involved)? This whole thing about improving the world goes into the toilet when your child is crying and you’re looking at your house being foreclosed. If you’re well off, everything is rosy. You need to also consider other viewpoints.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Now imagine that your great grandparents were enslaved. Then your grandparents and parents suffered through Jim Crow. Then you go through life being slighted and made to feel like an other and anytime you achieve something, some idiot claims it was because of racial quotas and you know some others think it to themselves. Then you are told that you didn't get the job because now (as of the day the civil rights act passed or the day Obama was elected) we no longer have racial bias in our hiring practices and we are now officially a meritocracy. So no, I don't see a problem with a system that might slightly favor a minority because I doubt that on the whole they are actually getting any sort of advantage anyway. 97% feels oppressive when you are used to 100%.
newacct583 6y ago
> this person’s contribution was not the reason for the naming but the fact that black people were supressed As opposed to all those other buildings, all of which were uniformly and fairly named after people with unimpeachible accomplishments in a purely meritocratic system, you mean? I mean, come on. People name junk after stupid things All. The. Time. And no one cares. Seriously, go to your local campus or government center or NASA facility or whatever and look up the names on the buildings and lecture halls and bathroom stalls. Tell me those people "really deserved" that recognition. Until you name something after a black woman. Then all of a sudden the white men get all meritocratic on your ass.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  > As opposed to all those other buildings, all of which were uniformly and fairly named after people with unimpeachible accomplishments in a purely meritocratic system, you mean? As opposed to an ideal people strive for. Of course no one will ever be happy with every name. Every person has their own opinion. It doesn’t mean there is no place for public discourse around it. > I mean, come on. People name junk after stupid things All. The. Time. And no one cares. Evidently people care a lot about such stuff. Maybe you don’t like it, but many people like when the streets and buildings honor respectable people. > Seriously, go to your local campus or government center or NASA facility or whatever and look up the names on the buildings and lecture halls and bathroom stalls. Tell me those people "really deserved" that recognition. Do you have an example? > Until you name something after a black woman. Then all of a sudden the white men get all meritocratic on your ass. This looks like projection and envy.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > Evidently people care a lot about such stuff. They don't, though. When was the last HN thread about a building named after someone undeserving? Or really any discussion about a routine honorific misapplied? Anything remotely similar? Only now, in a thread about a building named after a black woman, do "people" start to "care a lot about such stuff".
    - 6y ago

Thorentis 6y ago

> I want to remind them we dont live in a meritocratic society The reason I love the sciences is that in general, people are more meritocratic in those circles compared to others. I've found especially in scientific academia that people are far more meritocratic compared to other disciplines. This also applies at science/engineering companies. No, not at all levels (the more business-y you get, the less of a meritocracy it becomes). But usually team-leads, senior engineers, etc. rise because of merit. Always exceptions, but in general. Much more than as an accounting firm where you rise because you know somebody who knows somebody. Unfortunately, as time goes on, I've seen academic circles in sci&eng, and especially tech companies (and silicone valley in general) become much more interested in stay relevant, keeping up with social trends and movements, and appearing progressive. You see this with all the FAANG companies calmoring to be the first to speak out against some injustice or another, or be the first to take a stand on Their Platform(TM). And with this, the meritocracy has slowly declined. You don't rise in a company because you're a skilled engineer - you can rise because you're a token minority. Or because you're the most outspoken on a social injustice and can see a way for your company to solve it (sorry, profit from it). You can be rewarded because you were the first (insert random minority here) to solve a problem or do something that plenty of other people had already done. Rather than celebrating scientific advancement, we're now celebrating the type of people making that advancement. What next, the first black woman to clone a GitHub repo? Let's name the GitHub HQ after that.

tartoran 6y ago
People who come to surface are either genial or narcisistic prize seekers. A lot of white people worth mentioning were forgotten because others trampled on them. Don’t be so sure it’s so meritocratic, thats just a myth
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Most Nobel prize winners to date have been white. Would you say the majority of them sought out the prize? I've read about many of them, and most seem to have just had a great discovery that was awarded on merit. There will always be outliers that do things for the awards, but it's not a generialisation I've seen in the sciences. Should we start giving more Nobel prizes to black people just because of the color of their skin, or should we continue giving the Nobel prize to objectively high achievers?
  - Ar-Curunir 6y ago
    a lot of Nobel Prizes in the sciences just go to the high-profile Professors that lead projects, and not to the grad students that do most of the labour.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Just how do you think the Nobel committee decides which work to look at? I don't think they need to be meeting racial quotas for prizes, but my guess is that there is a lot of work to be done in the system that promotes and nominates candidates and those systems in place that decide who and what gets published.
larcrimacida 6y ago
You sound like a man who thinks they diserve recognition yourself and seem to be jealous. Check out your ego, you might become a more beautiful person if you shed some of it
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Not at all. I have achieved very little in my life, and will mostly likely spend my life reading about the great achievements of others. I enjoyed my time at university seeing the success of others and helping where I could, and I enjoy my quiet job where I can come home and forget about it and spend time with family. You made a very big assumption about me, based purely on my preference for working environment and social environment. There is nothing jealous about wanting to see people rewarded based on merit.

glosses 6y ago

Doesn't this go both ways? Is it really more meritocratic to choose someone who made a greater contribution if they were given significantly better opportunities throughout their life to achieve it? Can you even judge merit if not everyone is given an equal start?

systemvoltage 6y ago
The problem your opposition sees is that: It is a gross generalization and on an individual basis there is no way to check or know if that ______ person had equal opportunities or they didn’t. The problem with generalized appropriations but localized relief is that unfairness is vividly unbearable to those who are impacted. Imagine if race ______ gets 20 more points in an exam than the rest because they just happen to be a part of a minority. That would be infuriating to a lot of people who took that exam. It’s no fault of ours - this is a natural reaction of all humans. Now, if you’re not taking that exam, that might sound very benevolent. Life is like an exam in some ways. If everyone can take the exam, that would be great. Some can’t even take it, and that where the focus should be - eliminate poverty, inspire people to work hard, and enable people to go to college. Imagine for a moment - you’re laid off, your family depends solely on you to survive. You’ve interviewed and you think you got the job only to realize that a minority person took it instead only because of the color of their skin. Would you be ok with that(assuming it’s true that there was no meritocracy involved)? This whole thing about improving the world goes into the toilet when your child is crying and you’re looking at your house being foreclosed. If you’re well off, everything is rosy. You need to also consider other viewpoints.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Now imagine that your great grandparents were enslaved. Then your grandparents and parents suffered through Jim Crow. Then you go through life being slighted and made to feel like an other and anytime you achieve something, some idiot claims it was because of racial quotas and you know some others think it to themselves. Then you are told that you didn't get the job because now (as of the day the civil rights act passed or the day Obama was elected) we no longer have racial bias in our hiring practices and we are now officially a meritocracy. So no, I don't see a problem with a system that might slightly favor a minority because I doubt that on the whole they are actually getting any sort of advantage anyway. 97% feels oppressive when you are used to 100%.

newacct583 6y ago

> this person’s contribution was not the reason for the naming but the fact that black people were supressed As opposed to all those other buildings, all of which were uniformly and fairly named after people with unimpeachible accomplishments in a purely meritocratic system, you mean? I mean, come on. People name junk after stupid things All. The. Time. And no one cares. Seriously, go to your local campus or government center or NASA facility or whatever and look up the names on the buildings and lecture halls and bathroom stalls. Tell me those people "really deserved" that recognition. Until you name something after a black woman. Then all of a sudden the white men get all meritocratic on your ass.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
> As opposed to all those other buildings, all of which were uniformly and fairly named after people with unimpeachible accomplishments in a purely meritocratic system, you mean? As opposed to an ideal people strive for. Of course no one will ever be happy with every name. Every person has their own opinion. It doesn’t mean there is no place for public discourse around it. > I mean, come on. People name junk after stupid things All. The. Time. And no one cares. Evidently people care a lot about such stuff. Maybe you don’t like it, but many people like when the streets and buildings honor respectable people. > Seriously, go to your local campus or government center or NASA facility or whatever and look up the names on the buildings and lecture halls and bathroom stalls. Tell me those people "really deserved" that recognition. Do you have an example? > Until you name something after a black woman. Then all of a sudden the white men get all meritocratic on your ass. This looks like projection and envy.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > Evidently people care a lot about such stuff. They don't, though. When was the last HN thread about a building named after someone undeserving? Or really any discussion about a routine honorific misapplied? Anything remotely similar? Only now, in a thread about a building named after a black woman, do "people" start to "care a lot about such stuff".
  - 6y ago