Maybe this iz wut we need?
POSTED BY: JO753
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 17:52
VIEWED: 19328
PAGE 8 of 16
Certainly not when meritocracy is a bad word.
Some days I actually wish I was about 60 IQ points lower.
Dumb people are usually a lot happier than smart people.
--------------------------------------------------
A government is a body of people usually, notably, governed by Mark Zuckerborg and Slack Dorsey. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's raciss.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Certainly not when meritocracy ...
At least, according to BLM.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:That's raciss.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Certainly not when meritocracy ...
At least, according to BLM.
And Antifa. And CNN. And MSNBC. And NYT. And WaPo. And MotherJones. And Vox. And Salon. And Buzzfeed. yada, yada, yada...
--------------------------------------------------
A government is a body of people usually, notably, governed by Mark Zuckerborg and Slack Dorsey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
deleted ... will completely post later
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, KIKI ... and WISHY, REAVERBOT, SECONDRATE, etec ... you will not find me saying that we have a true meritocracy. Prejudice still exists, both "in favor of" and "against" any group that you care to point to, whether it's whites, blacks, Asians, women, men, etc.
However, simply ARGUING for a meritocracy is considered "racist".
Also, I'm aware that meritocracy would not be so stringent if there were simply MORE JOBS overall. Hiring would not be focused on winnowing to the top 2 of 200 applicants if the job pool was larger.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Believe it or not, that's a conclusion I came to many many years ago. When virtually everyone who applies is qualified, and there are far, far more applicants than there are spots, how do you decide?
Well, it depends on the gatekeepers and their vested interests. If they want to see white men succeed, they'll restrict access to white men. If they want to see their rich buddies succeed, they game the system to favor their rich buddies. And if they really, really dislike a group, they'll go out of their way to exclude them.
So discrimination exists to direct opportunity to a pre-selected group, when merit is a non-functional factor.
But even IF you succeed in establishing a true meritocracy, it's not true that anybody can succeed who deserves it, if it's not true that everybody can succeed who deserves it. Because many people who deserve that place will be left out if there is no place for them. And if all deserving people don't get everything they deserve, how is that a meritocracy and not some weird lottery instead?
Anyway, we don't have a meritocracy, with failure on more than one level. One is that we still have opportunity directed towards pre-selected group(s). The other is that not everybody can get everything they deserve.
What we have instead is people being forced into the ever increasing competition of the Roman arena of war of all against all. Where you have highly skilled people competing for low paying jobs, for example. And people being shunted into non-productive "non-essential" make-work, to scramble as best they can to keep afloat.
Looking at the few people considered "essential workers" and their generally very low pay, and the make-workers, and the very few people with stable personal economies based on wages, there is nothing remotely meritocratic about the economy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
deleted ... will completely post later
I actually did read this last night, but with a limited amount of coffee and any day not yet started, I can't for the life of me remember what the post was about other than a knock on Second because you were posting something seemingly completely unrelated to anything other than the story itself and it was about...
Oh right... It just came to me. Dude who made the fabled H20 engine.
I think I met that dude once, Kiki. It might be our 6 degrees to Kevin Bacon between you and I. My crazy Physics teacher in high school had his even crazier friend come in one day and tell us about how he made that engine and was on the run from the government and big oil who wanted to keep it a secret. Was this story of yours sometime in the early 90's?
Did he call himself Leonardo back then, or was that a fake name after he went on the run?
Very interested in seeing you post your full story.
--------------------------------------------------
A government is a body of people usually, notably, governed by Mark Zuckerborg and Slack Dorsey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, KIKI ... and WISHY, REAVERBOT, SECONDRATE, etec ... you will not find me saying that we have a true meritocracy. Prejudice still exists, both "in favor of" and "against" any group that you care to point to, whether it's whites, blacks, Asians, women, men, etc.
However, simply ARGUING for a meritocracy is considered "racist".
Also, I'm aware that meritocracy would not be so stringent if there were simply MORE JOBS overall. Hiring would not be focused on winnowing to the top 2 of 200 applicants if the job pool was larger.
It's not just about getting jobs. It's also about raises and promotions.
My last good job saw me double my initial salary in 5 years with the maximum 6% merit raise every year and several big bumps via job title change.
When I worked for 2.5 years overnight at KMart, I didn't get a single penny for a raise, even though my manager there gave me the best numbers on a performance review I'd ever gotten anywhere. When I told him that, he said the same thing that the manager said at the good job... They NEVER give out 5's because that would imply the person was "perfect" for the job and they figure it makes them more comfortable and less likely to keep pushing harder at work. He said since KMart hadn't been giving raises for 8 years straight and he couldn't give me a raise to get me above the bare minimum wage, the least he could do was be honest performance review.
The last job I had before I was laid off at least gave raises, but in "fairness", the managers were no longer able to reward good employees and punish bad ones at raise time, so everybody got a paltry 2% raise no matter how good or shitty they were.
But at least that gave me leverage. They knew that I knew I was worth a lot more than I was being paid and I told them if they wanted me more than 1 day per week they had to give me the schedule I wanted, and until the restructuring happened and we all lost our jobs, I worked the days I wanted to and was the only part time employee who had the same schedule every 2 weeks. After you've proven yourself, that's a nice benefit you can eek out in a meritless society if you're not bluffing when you say that the rate of pay isn't that important to you.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
What we have instead is people being forced into the ever increasing competition of the Roman arena of war of all against all. Where you have highly skilled people competing for low paying jobs, for example. And people being shunted into non-productive "non-essential" make-work, to scramble as best they can to keep afloat.
This right here is about half of the reason I've decided to opt out of the rat race. If I'm going to bust my ass and lend my perfectionist skills to make somebody else look good (and make money for them), then I'm going to do it as little as possible.
The other half would be I hardly ever pay any taxes to the federal government anymore with the low amount of income usually being under the standard deduction. I'm not on board with how they spend my money, so they don't need mine.
But on the other hand.... This is also why I'm typing all of this out to you on a 14 year old hand-me-down computer over a sketchy internet.
--------------------------------------------------
A government is a body of people usually, notably, governed by Mark Zuckerborg and Slack Dorsey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
OK, picked a couple of videos to watch. The one about "Who is the father" is one of the ones you're referring to?
Not any type uv show in particular. Any Steve Wilkos gest coud mention that they hav a bunch uv kidz, no matter wut they are there for.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
The real solution: https://fundrazr.com/71jIY1?ref=ab_f9ZUS0
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Unlike most species, in times of resource stress, humans RAISE their birthrate instead of lowering it. And when times are good, humans lower their birthrate - and that's called the 'demographic transition'....
Unfortunately, it duznt help much kuz hire living standardz = greater consumption. More bilding, more carz, more hunting hobbyists, more McDonaldz, more McMansionz, more manufacturing.
If poverty wuz suddenly eliminated from the world its game over in less than 20 yirz.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
The real solution: https://fundrazr.com/71jIY1?ref=ab_f9ZUS0
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME