|
|
|
|
|
by vanderZwan
2949 days ago
|
|
> The real issue here is that some people get really upset by the word "meritocracy". Clearly you have never dealt with a white man who is better off than certain women, or people from ethnic minorities, and thinks it's because his being white/male makes him inherently better and invokes "meritocracy" all the freaking time. I have. And I'm a half-Asian male - I can't imagine what it's like to deal with that jerk if I were a woman or an ethnic minority he didn't consider inherently intelligent (yes, really - he was actually surprised I was upset at the things he said because he wasn't talking about me, as if that was the reason for me to disagree with him). When the word "meritocracy" is used to structurally shut down debates of sexism and racism, it is no longer about meritocracy. |
|
> When the word "meritocracy" is used to structurally shut down debates of sexism and racism, it is no longer about meritocracy.
There seems to be a strange logical fallacy where "Our group aspires to be X" morphs into "Our group is X" - and then, the "conclusion" is drawn, that "evidence Y that were not X must be wrong, since after all, we are X".
From what I've seen, I'd apply the same thing to the concept of "color-blindness". As a society you can aspire to be "color-blind" all you want - if you still have cop violence against PoCs and "random searches" where the randomness is conditioned on skin color, you obviously aren't color-blind.
So this logical fallacy seems to exist and be widespread. However, I don't see how it would invalidate the concepts themselves.