3 ms·

That is a very poor faith reading of the OP’s comment. They didn’t argue for ‘equality of outcome’, just for a fairer distribution of reward. To use your formu

That is a very poor faith reading of the OP’s comment. They didn’t argue for ‘equality of outcome’, just for a fairer distribution of reward. To use your formulation, let’s say as true meritocrats, we want to reward ‘competency’. Well then surely we would like equal competency to receive equal reward (but assuming competency is not evenly distributed, this will necessarily lead to unequal outcomes - but justly so, for us meritocrats) But OP is decrying a world where we reward ‘success’, and sadly ‘competence’ doesn’t guarantee success (nor vice versa). Success is a function of circumstance and competence (and indeed in some circumstances success can manifest even for the utterly incompetent) so our current ‘success’ system rewards some people ‘too much’.

anonym29 2y ago
'too much', compared to what alternative? The one where we magically compute the contributory effect of circumstance for every person, such that all presumed "privileged" groups get automatically downgraded in a reward hierarchy, through no fault or wrongdoing of their own, and where all presumed "oppressed" groups get automatically upgraded in a reward hierarchy, through no competence or demonstrated merit of their own? If not that, then what is the relative position against which 'too much' is even being determined?
- jameshart 2y ago
  Your use of ‘presumed “privileged” groups’ and ‘presumed “oppressed” groups’ suggest you believe that in general, in most societies, there is actually equality of opportunity, and that our current ’reward hierarchy’ system mostly already rewards competence, and ignores circumstance. You’re entitled to that belief but I’d encourage you to exercise some cognitive empathy and reckon with the possibility that other people might have good reasons for disagreeing with that premise.

anonym29 2y ago

'too much', compared to what alternative? The one where we magically compute the contributory effect of circumstance for every person, such that all presumed "privileged" groups get automatically downgraded in a reward hierarchy, through no fault or wrongdoing of their own, and where all presumed "oppressed" groups get automatically upgraded in a reward hierarchy, through no competence or demonstrated merit of their own? If not that, then what is the relative position against which 'too much' is even being determined?

jameshart 2y ago
Your use of ‘presumed “privileged” groups’ and ‘presumed “oppressed” groups’ suggest you believe that in general, in most societies, there is actually equality of opportunity, and that our current ’reward hierarchy’ system mostly already rewards competence, and ignores circumstance. You’re entitled to that belief but I’d encourage you to exercise some cognitive empathy and reckon with the possibility that other people might have good reasons for disagreeing with that premise.