Jesus no kidding! I'm imagining a game where you get two or three layers deep into games within games and everyone gives up and goes to play mario kart instead.
Imagine pretending to be Latino and not knowing the difference between libre and gratis
Imagine working for somewhere that won't exist in 6 months and this is your resume building.
"I've got good news and I've got bad news. The good news is that we've prescribed some drops for your cough. The bad news is that you can never get married now"
"But I don't understand what this has to do with my cough..." "Everything! Hurry before it's too late, or I'll send you away and we won't be able to do anything about your cough!"
I sort of want to create a new website, FBXL Fact Check where we fact check basic facts about the world.
Fact check: No, the sky is NOT blue
Fact check: No, water is NOT wet
Fact check: No, 1+1 does NOT equal 2
And each one of them would start with the line "While it is true that [thing I just said was not true]"
Fact check: No, the sky is NOT blue
Fact check: No, water is NOT wet
Fact check: No, 1+1 does NOT equal 2
And each one of them would start with the line "While it is true that [thing I just said was not true]"
Fog of proxy war, so you can't trust anything either of them say, but it would be funny as hell if that was true.
That cuts both ways. I've seen a lot of longstanding communities lately where a few people show up, declare themselves the new kings, that their way of doing things is the way things are done now, and not a whole lot changes because why would it? If you're entering a space inhabited by a bunch of people, it is sensible to expect you to become a part of it, but not come to dominate it necessarily.
Federal investigations to shut down companies with the wrong politics. Great to see the left learned the right lessons from mcarthyism.
*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.