*checks user count*
Huh, turns out that twitter users aren't interested in migrating to a site run off of parts scavenged from a roadside sign.
Guess my loss, eh?
Huh, turns out that twitter users aren't interested in migrating to a site run off of parts scavenged from a roadside sign.
Guess my loss, eh?
Is a man not entitled to not bang a 90 year old socialist?
'No!' says the man in Washington, 'Bang her for the people.'
'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'Bang her for God.'
'No!' says the man in Los Angeles, 'Bang her for everyone.'
I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different.
I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture.
'No!' says the man in Washington, 'Bang her for the people.'
'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'Bang her for God.'
'No!' says the man in Los Angeles, 'Bang her for everyone.'
I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different.
I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture.
When you're talking about humans, humans *are* nature. The topic is infinitely broad, so I don't know what else to say than that.
Why does merit refer to that? I don't think it's more meritorious to jump through hoops than to be a virtuous person who has accomplished much.
Besides that, I'd definitely argue against the idea that all hierarchy emerges as a demonstration of competence.
King Charles (Carlos) II of Spain was at the top of the hierarchy in Spain in 1665, despite many factors. At the time he was four years old. The king was unable to chew his food. Charles II’s tongue was so huge he could barely speak. He was not allowed to walk until he was almost fully grown and his family didn’t bother to educate him. The king was illiterate and totally dependent on those around him.
He was at the top of the hierarchy because someone long ago happened to be in charge, so their kids were and their kids were and their kid were, and the only reason why his kids weren't also in charge is that he was so inbred he was totally impotent.
Besides that, I'd definitely argue against the idea that all hierarchy emerges as a demonstration of competence.
King Charles (Carlos) II of Spain was at the top of the hierarchy in Spain in 1665, despite many factors. At the time he was four years old. The king was unable to chew his food. Charles II’s tongue was so huge he could barely speak. He was not allowed to walk until he was almost fully grown and his family didn’t bother to educate him. The king was illiterate and totally dependent on those around him.
He was at the top of the hierarchy because someone long ago happened to be in charge, so their kids were and their kids were and their kid were, and the only reason why his kids weren't also in charge is that he was so inbred he was totally impotent.
Merit and quality seem to me to be synonymous. You'd say "people of merit should be in charge" or synonymously "people of quality should be in charge". It seems to me that your specific gripe with meritocracy may just be what a specific meritocracy's definition of merit entails.
Hierarchy is innate, but those hierarchies aren't formed magically. People (or animals, or crustaceans) end up dominant for a reason. Does that hierarchy form from competence, or social standing, or brute force, or through chosen bloodlines?
Depending on the answer of how a hierarchy is formed, completely different people end up at the bottom and the top.
Hierarchy is innate, but those hierarchies aren't formed magically. People (or animals, or crustaceans) end up dominant for a reason. Does that hierarchy form from competence, or social standing, or brute force, or through chosen bloodlines?
Depending on the answer of how a hierarchy is formed, completely different people end up at the bottom and the top.
Step 1 is you promote a culture of accepting a generous paycheque and benefits to the fullest.
Step 2 is then you promote a culture of softness such that nobody feels like they need to work for that paycheque and benefits
Step 3 is then you create a shitty vrchat clone while amping it up like it's the second coming of Christ
How much of that $677 billion dollars went to online socialists who spend an hour at work each month and the rest of their time being online activists?
Step 2 is then you promote a culture of softness such that nobody feels like they need to work for that paycheque and benefits
Step 3 is then you create a shitty vrchat clone while amping it up like it's the second coming of Christ
How much of that $677 billion dollars went to online socialists who spend an hour at work each month and the rest of their time being online activists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYyARMqiaag&list=PLF797E961509B4EB5
This math teacher is jacked! Holy crap!
This math teacher is jacked! Holy crap!
I'd tend to agree with that. Something needs to be done (I've written a lot about that in the past 24 hours), but not the Greta Thunberg "SHUT IT DOWN RIGHT NOW!!!" temper tantrum.
@alex when you add groups to soapbox, please do what you can to make it compatible with lemmy and lotide communities. That would be really cool being able to participate in those communities right from the one website!
As long as I've been alive, more poor people have died from the effects of obesity than starvation. Poor people have televisions, smart phones, electricity, running water, sewage. They can go to elementary school and high school and have a chance of going to college. As long as I've been alive, people haven't had to worry about agricultural output, they were going to eat. They didn't need to worry about how many houses were being built, they'd have a place to stay. they didn't need to worry about how much wood was being cut, they'd have enough heat for the winter. It doesn't matter how dry the well gets, they'd have enough water.
They're insulated from the reality of how their life is maintained. That's why they start to act as if they don't need to worry about a lack of food, where our grandparents had pantries packed with canned food. That's why they start to act as if work is just a nuisance that should be abolished rather than a mandatory contribution to the society that benefits them. That's why they start to act as if we can shut off the biggest forms of energy, rather than a genocidal and insane proposition.
They're insulated from the reality of how their life is maintained. That's why they start to act as if they don't need to worry about a lack of food, where our grandparents had pantries packed with canned food. That's why they start to act as if work is just a nuisance that should be abolished rather than a mandatory contribution to the society that benefits them. That's why they start to act as if we can shut off the biggest forms of energy, rather than a genocidal and insane proposition.
The most successful society in history was a meritocracy that came from a tiny island surrounded by salt water and came to have an empire so large the sun was always shining on one piece of it.
Meritocracy is egalitarian in the sense that people from any walk of life can rise up, but it is the opposite in the sense that most people aren't exceptional and so there's a clear and ordered hierarchy.
Meritocracy is egalitarian in the sense that people from any walk of life can rise up, but it is the opposite in the sense that most people aren't exceptional and so there's a clear and ordered hierarchy.
That's a good point too -- Can you call something that's been implemented in places longer than any of us have been alive new or different?
"We need to once again try to implement this 200 year old book like we've been trying to do for 150 years but THIS TIME it'll work"
"We need to once again try to implement this 200 year old book like we've been trying to do for 150 years but THIS TIME it'll work"
Absolutely! Gab and Truth Social could switch on federation TOMORROW, and I'm certain that Twitter could have ActivityPub working in a week.
Both change and staying the same in a vacuum mean death.
You need to have a bit of both. We need to adopt changes that will make life better or allow us to continue to survive in changing circumstances, but we also need to remember our traditions didn't come about out of malice, but because they are lessons our great great grandparents wanted to pass on because they thought those ideas were the ones that kept them alive and allowed them to have good lives.
Our DNA does the same thing -- It's just coming to light now just how much of our behavior comes entirely from the way our brains are structured not due to external stimuli but due to our DNA. Certain things we're scared of, that's not because we learned to fear them but because our DNA has certain primal fears written into them by the people who survived the past where we would die childless and bloodlines would end.
A huge thing we need to do is listen to the lessons of the past without letting those lessons cripple us. When I was trying to find a woman after I got out of college, I had to learn that my fear of being rejected by women was normal and sensible, but I had to overcome it because if I didn't take that risk then I had a much greater risk of being alone for good, and that's in some ways a fate worse than death.
The problem right now is that change is presently the orthodoxy. It's just accepted as fact that all the structures we inherited are wrong and evil, and that's just not true. We're changing things that are good and that work because that's what we've always done. In this sense, leftism is conservatism, and that's not good. We need to realize that the past holds a lot of wisdom for us and we need to carry that with us in addition to being willing to bend when the future doesn't match with the past or the past had problems to solve.
Without the conservatism to keep good things, you don't get any successes for the changes you make because you just change good things anyway. Instead of an evolutionary method where we keep good things and change bad things and move forward, society just becomes like static on a TV -- random noise that's completely incoherent.
You need to have a bit of both. We need to adopt changes that will make life better or allow us to continue to survive in changing circumstances, but we also need to remember our traditions didn't come about out of malice, but because they are lessons our great great grandparents wanted to pass on because they thought those ideas were the ones that kept them alive and allowed them to have good lives.
Our DNA does the same thing -- It's just coming to light now just how much of our behavior comes entirely from the way our brains are structured not due to external stimuli but due to our DNA. Certain things we're scared of, that's not because we learned to fear them but because our DNA has certain primal fears written into them by the people who survived the past where we would die childless and bloodlines would end.
A huge thing we need to do is listen to the lessons of the past without letting those lessons cripple us. When I was trying to find a woman after I got out of college, I had to learn that my fear of being rejected by women was normal and sensible, but I had to overcome it because if I didn't take that risk then I had a much greater risk of being alone for good, and that's in some ways a fate worse than death.
The problem right now is that change is presently the orthodoxy. It's just accepted as fact that all the structures we inherited are wrong and evil, and that's just not true. We're changing things that are good and that work because that's what we've always done. In this sense, leftism is conservatism, and that's not good. We need to realize that the past holds a lot of wisdom for us and we need to carry that with us in addition to being willing to bend when the future doesn't match with the past or the past had problems to solve.
Without the conservatism to keep good things, you don't get any successes for the changes you make because you just change good things anyway. Instead of an evolutionary method where we keep good things and change bad things and move forward, society just becomes like static on a TV -- random noise that's completely incoherent.