The creator of the word meritocracy created it to parody how people think the world is mostly just. Curious no?
It would be if it were true. The satire you're referring to, used the word as a way to criticize how the British government of the period was selecting people into an elite ruling class based on suspect standards of intelligence and aptitude. The word itself was invented as a shorthand to refer to that process and its justifications. It was not a parody of the idea of meritocracy as it is understood today.
From wikipedia;
Meritocracy is the implementation of advancement based upon intellectual
talent. Often, advancement is determined by demonstrated achievement in the field where it is implemented.
Aside from that, I'm curious, If you believe that meritocracy is indeed evidence of right-wing sociopathic behavior. What would be the Communist/Liberal/Democratic alternative? Surely you're not advocating a kakistocracy (i.e. rule by the worst).
Once again we see members of the social justice community promoting "privilege" as the metric for which all achievements should be judged. Developed an amazing search technology? "Well, they're two straight white males... big deal". Revolutionized the mobile devices industry? "He's a straight white male of course it's easy for him". Created the largest social network on Earth? Pfff...all he had to do was show up.
The fundamental flaw with privilege theory is that there is no way of discerning where someones supposed privilege ends and where their actual achievements and talent begin.
Unless you're gong to simple say "anyone could of done that and the only reason you were able to was because you're a white male" or a "dude" or "boy" as this author seems to be fond of calling men (misandrist much?). In other words we're all equally talented, smart, motivated and lucky and the only differentiator is race, class and gender. Which I think most would agree is absurd.
One question I have though is what would be the ideal world for the OP? A system where everyone's race, class, gender and privilege are considered when making hiring decisions and then adjusting applicants qualifications accordingly?
Is that really the world we want to live in?
Privilege is essentially a shaming tactic. It's proponents believe that they can create a reverse social hierarchy by convincing those supposedly at the top (straight while males) that every aspect of their lives benefits from a social advantage they don't know they have. Thus straight white males are encouraged to live in a constant state of paranoia and shame essentially for being born. For those who accept this belief system, the only way to achieve harmony with those around you is to actively "give away your privilege" which is to say sabotage and undermine your own potential and achievements so that other, less privileged persons may somehow benefit. How this should be done is typically left unclear. As with most "social justice" belief systems the point is to spread guilt and shame. Ultimately, this belief system just further stigmatizes those that it seeks to help by not only classifying people by race, class and gender but by states of privilege as well.
No. Actually it is things that shouldn't happen in the first place. It is not OK that everyone went to the white guy assuming he was the boss, no matter if he was dressed like a bum and holding a mop or if he was counting out money drawers while the black guy was holding the mop.
It is the cops showing up at the bar when it's mostly white people and being polite and trying to figure out who the fighters were, but the same bar on a different, calmer, night when its mostly black people just dropping tear gas canisters on the crowd, and grabbing me, the one white guy and saying 'stay over here out it's safer'.
It's me dressed like a bum with a mountain man beard being allowed into the club, but my black buddy with a suit being told he was too dressed dressed down for the dress code.
It the time the gas station cashier asked me to stay for a minute because some black people were out in the lot filling their lexus.
It's the innumerable times I've been told to "level with me, $female_dev just isn't that good is she", despite having written the entire codebase they were complimenting me for.
It's the fact that I've never been stopped by the cops for looking suspicious or being in the wrong neighborhood no matter what I am wearing or doing, and no matter how illegal the contents of my pockets were.
Talking about privilege is not talking about undermining anything. It's not about being shaming anyone. It is about real occurrences that happen daily, in an era when people claim there is "no difference between anyone", yet anecdotally and statistically it just isn't true.
I don't want to give away my privilege. I want the standards that apply to me to apply to everyone. This is different. I don't want, nor think anyone should start being hassled and denied more, I think that those who are hassled and denied more for stupid reasons to not experience that. Period.
I don't want a reverse social hierarchy, I just don't want a social hierarchy base on anything other than actual accomplishment. If getting there means cutting some slack to someone who did a damn good job despite constant unwarranted criticism, or an environment that pushes them to the outside, I'll do it. It is a bigger accomplishment to do well when there are people actively acting against you, than to do great when everyone is trying to help you.
This is a complete misunderstanding of every single facet of privilege. I honestly hope you feel less persecuted someday; may I suggest looking up some statistics to assure yourself of your particular demographic's dominance in your preferred field?
It has nothing to do with facts. It is which facts you are interested in.
If you talk about Tesla having created some jobs, fine, then it is a success. If you are talking about Tesla not even selling 10000 cars per year, and are used to "regular" car industry sales numbers, it is a joke.
The idea of absolute truth in politics is questionable. You will in almost all cases find a way to show that the guy you don't like is wrong and the guy you like is right.
Fact, strangely, is loaded. Romney brought up Tesla as a negative investment in green energy. Obama holds them, or what they're doing, as an archetype of the new "American way" forward (even though they aren't breaking auto sales records). If that were explained, tweet sized, the viewer could have a better understanding of the rhetoric.
Romney's dad was chair of American Motors during what passed for its glory years (he took the stock from $7/share to $90), so this is a topic where he may have some familiarity.
I love how someone always hauls out that set of speech codes every time there's any discussion of race or gender in a forum, as if there's a "correct way" to participate in these discussions. You're not our proctor. If you want to let that absurd list of rules dictate how you discuss these issues then go ahead but please don't expect the rest us to follow suit. Hopefully the rest of HN doesn't subscribe to that kind of self-censorship.
If I am having a conversation with my friend about struggles he's having with his boss, and you come in and start talking about how difficult is is to hire good people, you're being an asshole. It's not wrong to talk about hiring, but you're a jerk if you insist on derailing our conversation.
Now being a jerk isn't so awful. But we could just walk away and have our conversation in private, right? It's a free country after all.
But when this kind of derailment happens over and over again to the point that no matter when or where you bring it up, SOMEONE finds a way to derail the conversation, it starts to become oppressive. At that point the community is conspiring to prevent people from discussing racism.
And so we implore you to decide, FOR YOURSELF, that you would like to join us in making space for real talk about racism. The notion of "self-censorship" is nonsense. We all have free will and and we can decide what to speak about. I'm not going to get the government to silence you, I'm asking you to understand the effects of your words and to take responsibility for them.
It would be if it were true. The satire you're referring to, used the word as a way to criticize how the British government of the period was selecting people into an elite ruling class based on suspect standards of intelligence and aptitude. The word itself was invented as a shorthand to refer to that process and its justifications. It was not a parody of the idea of meritocracy as it is understood today.
From wikipedia; Meritocracy is the implementation of advancement based upon intellectual talent. Often, advancement is determined by demonstrated achievement in the field where it is implemented.
Aside from that, I'm curious, If you believe that meritocracy is indeed evidence of right-wing sociopathic behavior. What would be the Communist/Liberal/Democratic alternative? Surely you're not advocating a kakistocracy (i.e. rule by the worst).