6 ms·

The parent is describing the postmodern definition of Meritocracy where "merit" is just a point view. In that world all achievements/failures must be evaluated

The parent is describing the postmodern definition of Meritocracy where "merit" is just a point view. In that world all achievements/failures must be evaluated in light of the person or group's privilege/race/class/gender and sexuality. People who subscribe to this definition really don't believe in meritocracy as it's generally viewed as a way to institutionalize white male advantage. Just a heads up :)

eshvk 14y ago
I am not sure whether this is what the parent meant. I mean one way of looking at it is that the more people from completely different backgrounds do things, the more interesting the work gets. E.g. it is possible that some people (teens, women) have a better perspective on solving some problems that affect them more. I generally support the success of more people from varied backgrounds in tech. Mainly because it makes for a wider variance in problems that get solved. It gets tiring to see every startup out there that solves problems for 20 something people who live in San Francisco (who incidentally might be male, asian/white...). This does not however mean that I ascribe to the idea that one should impose quotas or have lower standards for people who don't fit in these demographics.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  E.g. it is possible that some people (teens, women) have a better perspective on solving some problems that affect them more. Is it possible that some people (men, whites, asians) have a better perspective on solving some problems?
  - namank 14y ago
    It is not about the exclusion of some people as much as it about the inclusion of all.
namank 14y ago
While I did borrow from feminist epistomology, that's not the point. Simply put, having a diverse workforce is better because it introduces diversity in work.
jfim 14y ago
I completely agree with you that there is more merit(effort) in coming from a disadvantaged background (say x-5) and getting to point x than coming from a wealthier background (x-3) and getting to point x. I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit and completely orthogonally to privilege/race/class/gender.
- mjmahone17 14y ago
  I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit Why? If two candidates are equal in every way, why not favor the one coming from a disadvantaged background? Shouldn't they be more, rather than equally, likely to achieve more given the same future resources?
hacker789 14y ago
It's disheartening to watch online communities turn on themselves as they become infected with the cancer of postmodern feminism. It's a bullying, disempowering, dissent-crushing and divisive[1] ideology that erases individual experiences, obsesses over things one cannot control, demonizes nuance, and glorifies experiencing alleged "oppression", as defined in Marxist terms. It's toxic. Unless things change, the evaporative cooling effect will leave Hacker News a divisive, infighting shell of its former self. Hopefully, a few new, positive communities will have sprouted by then. I'm constantly on the lookout. [1] Look beneath the surface of any postmodern Marxist, anarchist, or feminist community, and you'll quickly see that dissent is completely non-tolerated, often in comical fashion. "Check your privilege" and similar anti-intellectualisms are internally thrown around like candy over any disagreement, new members are expected to prostrate themselves, and sub-communities are constantly splintering off and reemerging under new "leaders".
- namank 14y ago
  Erases individual experiences? That's exactly the opposite of what feminist epistemology proposes, hacker789.

eshvk 14y ago

I am not sure whether this is what the parent meant. I mean one way of looking at it is that the more people from completely different backgrounds do things, the more interesting the work gets. E.g. it is possible that some people (teens, women) have a better perspective on solving some problems that affect them more. I generally support the success of more people from varied backgrounds in tech. Mainly because it makes for a wider variance in problems that get solved. It gets tiring to see every startup out there that solves problems for 20 something people who live in San Francisco (who incidentally might be male, asian/white...). This does not however mean that I ascribe to the idea that one should impose quotas or have lower standards for people who don't fit in these demographics.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
E.g. it is possible that some people (teens, women) have a better perspective on solving some problems that affect them more. Is it possible that some people (men, whites, asians) have a better perspective on solving some problems?
- namank 14y ago
  It is not about the exclusion of some people as much as it about the inclusion of all.

namank 14y ago

While I did borrow from feminist epistomology, that's not the point. Simply put, having a diverse workforce is better because it introduces diversity in work.

jfim 14y ago

I completely agree with you that there is more merit(effort) in coming from a disadvantaged background (say x-5) and getting to point x than coming from a wealthier background (x-3) and getting to point x. I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit and completely orthogonally to privilege/race/class/gender.

mjmahone17 14y ago
I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit Why? If two candidates are equal in every way, why not favor the one coming from a disadvantaged background? Shouldn't they be more, rather than equally, likely to achieve more given the same future resources?

hacker789 14y ago

It's disheartening to watch online communities turn on themselves as they become infected with the cancer of postmodern feminism. It's a bullying, disempowering, dissent-crushing and divisive[1] ideology that erases individual experiences, obsesses over things one cannot control, demonizes nuance, and glorifies experiencing alleged "oppression", as defined in Marxist terms. It's toxic. Unless things change, the evaporative cooling effect will leave Hacker News a divisive, infighting shell of its former self. Hopefully, a few new, positive communities will have sprouted by then. I'm constantly on the lookout. [1] Look beneath the surface of any postmodern Marxist, anarchist, or feminist community, and you'll quickly see that dissent is completely non-tolerated, often in comical fashion. "Check your privilege" and similar anti-intellectualisms are internally thrown around like candy over any disagreement, new members are expected to prostrate themselves, and sub-communities are constantly splintering off and reemerging under new "leaders".

namank 14y ago
Erases individual experiences? That's exactly the opposite of what feminist epistemology proposes, hacker789.