They all 'get it'. They just don't care. Sometimes a few decide to pretend to care thinking it will get them votes. Then when it's time to pay the piper, they reneg.
Snowflakes are the ones who cry to big brother when someone says/does something they don't like. I don't see many right leaning people doing that, except maybe for the pro-police-do-no-wrong crowd. In contrast, the authoritarian streak is universal on the left.
Success at roles you are responsible for is merit, yes. It means you are deserving of the role, title, and responsibility that goes with it. It seems as though people who push for equal outcome are the ones who want the title and prestige but not the responsibility. Society cannot function this way.
If the fix includes favoring people for irrelevant attributes used by others to disfavor, it just adds more favoritism to the pile. It does not promote merit.
Even if that's the case, that doesn't make merit bad and something we should avoid in favor of 'equal outcome' politics, which is what the merit-is-bad crowd is trying to imply. Don't attack merit, attack favoritism.
This is a strawman. Again, that's not merit. That's favor..assuming of course that the CEO didn't earn his position. Organizations with a strong belief in merit resist the kind of favor you're talking about. Of course, such organizations often run afoul of diversity quotas and other bigoted policy because such quotas fail to model reality (especially humanity, which is a part) well.
I don't assume favor's the case just because the CEO's salary is large. He's the acting head of the company. He's calling the shots and making the big decisions. The decision the rest have is whether it's worth the time and stress involved to get and keep that salary someday. Being a CEO is much harder for me than my current job, therefore I'm not jealous that he's making more than I am. You might want that salary, in which case, go for it. You may or may not succeed. Just because you did not does not automatically mean you were unfairly discriminated against.
Actual merit is a useful thing, but our means of measuring it produce a largely useless and often harmful metric.
If it's so useful, then what is it harmful to, besides the egos of those with far-left ideological beliefs? Even if society is falling short, that doesn't mean we should do what they suggest and give it up for the sake of their ideological fallacies. TFS is loaded with them.
It's up to you to have that realization. It is not up to others to prop you up to their level. You want to be there? Earn it. It's hollow to have it handed out. It's much more satisfying to earn it. When you do, you will earn the respect of those would-be benefactors and become one of them. At that point you will know success by your own standards. That said, it's true that there's no guarantee of success. Life isn't an equal distribution. Do your best like the rest of us.
u can be as good, as fast, as superior to your peers be as you want. If you aren't lucky, this leads to nothing
So go somewhere were it will lead to something. Eventually, you will find someone desperate enough for talent who will see yours and hire you. Bigots aren't interested in talent. They're interested in building and maintaining cliques.
(and even the fact that you are good and fast is mainly luck).
No hard work or dedication involved, eh? So everybody's a star athlete just waiting to try out? Not even close. I never said that randomness doesn't play a part, but it's no reason to discount merit (which is the typical position held by 'myth-of-merit' arguments). Assuming luck as the primary reason for the success bell curve is extremely dense. Life does not work this way. At all.
But if you believe that somehow, you earned your luck (e.g. you got it because of your merits), you are turning selfish, uncritical against yourself and discriminatory to others.
Again that same fallacy. So, assuming I was 'successful', I'm an ego driven bigot if I don't join your self loathing club? This sounds suspiciously like the 'Good News' original sin routine from the Christians. No thanks. I never bought it from the Christian Right so I sure as hell am not going to buy it from the Progressive Left.
Nepotism isn't necessarily limited to family connections. Like the poster above, yours is not an example of merit. It is an example of favoring those with superior social skills over those with merit. Whether it's that CEO manipulating his way into a parachute or the army of social justice lunatics demanding unearned reward, it's still merely favor. The argument I criticized from TFS and from that anon is that merit is unhealthy. I disagree.
If the company he works for won't recognize his talent, that bright kid should find a better job at a place that does. Organizations that don't reward, or worse, punish, superior talent out of fear or to impose some 'equality' orthodoxy deserve to float to the bottom and rot.
Like the poster above, I don't think you understand what the word merit means. Merit is earned respect/reward for accomplishment. It is not merely favor.
Which proves that true meritocracy is a pipe dream believed in by people wanting to ensure
Right, but equal outcome equality isn't? Imposing absolute equality everywhere is a childish pipe dream to be sure. Life is anything but equal. Building a draconian state to impose it just ensures everyone is equally oppressed.
Depends why they were discriminated against for that job. If it was baseless, then yes, if it was based on sound reasoning (aka merit), then NO. This is true even if their irrelevant attributes are underrepresented at the the company. Why? because it's illogical to assume that all people of a given group are automatically oppressed/privileged for the same reasons it's illogical to assume all people of a given race are inferior/superior. Who's the racist? The one who judges people as individuals, or one like yourself who wants the state to impose generalizations based on skin and genitals?
I never said they're lazy. Welcome to life. I don't know what else to tell you. People who can produce the most value get the most reward. That is how life works. I don't care if you live in Westchester, NY or in the most rural town imaginable. Even there, the people who consistently produce the most value for the community end up at the top of the chain. I suppose you'd like to impose yourself on them too, thereby ensuring they'll STAY poor because the smartest/most valuable go elsewhere to get away from your tyranny? Would you then label them 'privileged' and mark them as targets too?
Except that they tend to lack in areas of knowledge actually required to do their jobs..or at least to understand the jobs of those who work for them. Then they fall back on their 'superior' social skills and gaslight subordinates who get closest to making them realize just how far away from reality their understanding actually is.
Social skills are important, but not at the expense of critical thinking, knowledge, and wisdom. Unfortunately, society today is obsessed with them and the deficiencies are already starting to show.
That's not an example of meritocracy, it's one of nepotism. Affirmative action is another.
Societies that can't handle reality are doomed to fail. Some people are better, faster than others. Deal with it. People are tribal and place undue value in charismatic leaders. Deal with it. If you can't, there's always Sally Struthers' offer of TV/VCR repair and auto mechanic training. In the meantime, focusing on merit helps mitigate these tendencies.
The last 100 years of history has shown that socialism inevitably breeds illiberal, totalitarian states. The further to the left a society goes, the more totalitarian it gets.
The tyranny of absolute safety is hardly safety at all...or worth living for.
If you have nothing bad, why you want to hide.
The problem is that 'bad' constitutes different things to different people. A society with no privacy is a perpetual witchhunt against those who dare to think differently. Such societies rot from the inside.
Chinese pick security.
Chinese also choose to run over students with tanks, or disappear people who practice peaceful religions.
change it how? make it more 'accessible'?..and of course the quality of the titles will suffer, too, in order to conform to this new lower average standard of expectation, ability, and presentation technology.
It's not all that different to what 'social justice' is doing to critical institutions in order to make them more 'accessible'. I'll pass.
Math has practical applications. So do astronomy and archaeology. Maybe there'd be a place for sociology in science had its proponents not adopted ideological moonbattery and spread it as a plague of pseudo science.
Slashdot Mirror
They all 'get it'. They just don't care. Sometimes a few decide to pretend to care thinking it will get them votes. Then when it's time to pay the piper, they reneg.
it's vice.. What did you expect? Real journalism?
Snowflakes are the ones who cry to big brother when someone says/does something they don't like. I don't see many right leaning people doing that, except maybe for the pro-police-do-no-wrong crowd. In contrast, the authoritarian streak is universal on the left.
Whatever you say, comrade. gotta have extreme micromanagement because anything less is anarchy. Dictators always love those false dilemmas.
Success at roles you are responsible for is merit, yes. It means you are deserving of the role, title, and responsibility that goes with it. It seems as though people who push for equal outcome are the ones who want the title and prestige but not the responsibility. Society cannot function this way.
If the fix includes favoring people for irrelevant attributes used by others to disfavor, it just adds more favoritism to the pile. It does not promote merit.
Even if that's the case, that doesn't make merit bad and something we should avoid in favor of 'equal outcome' politics, which is what the merit-is-bad crowd is trying to imply. Don't attack merit, attack favoritism.
That's correct. management lacks merit in this example.
This is a strawman. Again, that's not merit. That's favor..assuming of course that the CEO didn't earn his position. Organizations with a strong belief in merit resist the kind of favor you're talking about. Of course, such organizations often run afoul of diversity quotas and other bigoted policy because such quotas fail to model reality (especially humanity, which is a part) well.
I don't assume favor's the case just because the CEO's salary is large. He's the acting head of the company. He's calling the shots and making the big decisions. The decision the rest have is whether it's worth the time and stress involved to get and keep that salary someday. Being a CEO is much harder for me than my current job, therefore I'm not jealous that he's making more than I am. You might want that salary, in which case, go for it. You may or may not succeed. Just because you did not does not automatically mean you were unfairly discriminated against.
Actual merit is a useful thing, but our means of measuring it produce a largely useless and often harmful metric.
If it's so useful, then what is it harmful to, besides the egos of those with far-left ideological beliefs? Even if society is falling short, that doesn't mean we should do what they suggest and give it up for the sake of their ideological fallacies. TFS is loaded with them.
It's up to you to have that realization. It is not up to others to prop you up to their level. You want to be there? Earn it. It's hollow to have it handed out. It's much more satisfying to earn it. When you do, you will earn the respect of those would-be benefactors and become one of them. At that point you will know success by your own standards. That said, it's true that there's no guarantee of success. Life isn't an equal distribution. Do your best like the rest of us.
u can be as good, as fast, as superior to your peers be as you want. If you aren't lucky, this leads to nothing
So go somewhere were it will lead to something. Eventually, you will find someone desperate enough for talent who will see yours and hire you. Bigots aren't interested in talent. They're interested in building and maintaining cliques.
(and even the fact that you are good and fast is mainly luck).
No hard work or dedication involved, eh? So everybody's a star athlete just waiting to try out? Not even close. I never said that randomness doesn't play a part, but it's no reason to discount merit (which is the typical position held by 'myth-of-merit' arguments). Assuming luck as the primary reason for the success bell curve is extremely dense. Life does not work this way. At all.
But if you believe that somehow, you earned your luck (e.g. you got it because of your merits), you are turning selfish, uncritical against yourself and discriminatory to others.
Again that same fallacy. So, assuming I was 'successful', I'm an ego driven bigot if I don't join your self loathing club? This sounds suspiciously like the 'Good News' original sin routine from the Christians. No thanks. I never bought it from the Christian Right so I sure as hell am not going to buy it from the Progressive Left.
Nepotism isn't necessarily limited to family connections. Like the poster above, yours is not an example of merit. It is an example of favoring those with superior social skills over those with merit. Whether it's that CEO manipulating his way into a parachute or the army of social justice lunatics demanding unearned reward, it's still merely favor. The argument I criticized from TFS and from that anon is that merit is unhealthy. I disagree.
If the company he works for won't recognize his talent, that bright kid should find a better job at a place that does. Organizations that don't reward, or worse, punish, superior talent out of fear or to impose some 'equality' orthodoxy deserve to float to the bottom and rot.
Like the poster above, I don't think you understand what the word merit means. Merit is earned respect/reward for accomplishment. It is not merely favor.
Which proves that true meritocracy is a pipe dream believed in by people wanting to ensure
Right, but equal outcome equality isn't?
Imposing absolute equality everywhere is a childish pipe dream to be sure. Life is anything but equal. Building a draconian state to impose it just ensures everyone is equally oppressed.
Depends why they were discriminated against for that job. If it was baseless, then yes, if it was based on sound reasoning (aka merit), then NO. This is true even if their irrelevant attributes are underrepresented at the the company. Why? because it's illogical to assume that all people of a given group are automatically oppressed/privileged for the same reasons it's illogical to assume all people of a given race are inferior/superior. Who's the racist? The one who judges people as individuals, or one like yourself who wants the state to impose generalizations based on skin and genitals?
I never said they're lazy. Welcome to life. I don't know what else to tell you. People who can produce the most value get the most reward. That is how life works. I don't care if you live in Westchester, NY or in the most rural town imaginable. Even there, the people who consistently produce the most value for the community end up at the top of the chain. I suppose you'd like to impose yourself on them too, thereby ensuring they'll STAY poor because the smartest/most valuable go elsewhere to get away from your tyranny? Would you then label them 'privileged' and mark them as targets too?
Agreed.
Except that they tend to lack in areas of knowledge actually required to do their jobs..or at least to understand the jobs of those who work for them. Then they fall back on their 'superior' social skills and gaslight subordinates who get closest to making them realize just how far away from reality their understanding actually is.
Social skills are important, but not at the expense of critical thinking, knowledge, and wisdom. Unfortunately, society today is obsessed with them and the deficiencies are already starting to show.
That's not an example of meritocracy, it's one of nepotism. Affirmative action is another.
Societies that can't handle reality are doomed to fail. Some people are better, faster than others. Deal with it. People are tribal and place undue value in charismatic leaders. Deal with it. If you can't, there's always Sally Struthers' offer of TV/VCR repair and auto mechanic training. In the meantime, focusing on merit helps mitigate these tendencies.
check your privilege.. he might not be gay.
The last 100 years of history has shown that socialism inevitably breeds illiberal, totalitarian states. The further to the left a society goes, the more totalitarian it gets.
The tyranny of absolute safety is hardly safety at all...or worth living for.
If you have nothing bad, why you want to hide.
The problem is that 'bad' constitutes different things to different people. A society with no privacy is a perpetual witchhunt against those who dare to think differently. Such societies rot from the inside.
Chinese pick security.
Chinese also choose to run over students with tanks, or disappear people who practice peaceful religions.
First it was the religious right, now it's the progressive left... all in the name of the children of course.
change is not axiomatically good or bad.
change it how? make it more 'accessible'? ..and of course the quality of the titles will suffer, too, in order to conform to this new lower average standard of expectation, ability, and presentation technology.
It's not all that different to what 'social justice' is doing to critical institutions in order to make them more 'accessible'. I'll pass.
or perhaps you're just a shill for financial reasons..or you've never played competitively.
cloud gaming will turn it into a shitty e-casino subscription service.. it's already bad enough with the current generation.
No thanks. Don't tell me what to do with my money. I don't want to live in the Soviet union 2.0
Math has practical applications. So do astronomy and archaeology. Maybe there'd be a place for sociology in science had its proponents not adopted ideological moonbattery and spread it as a plague of pseudo science.