[ehvatum]

Fighting over who to cancel is an ugly thing, and we need not do it. What is gained? Civility? The grim possibility of being ostracized is itself the object of conflict. Any sufficiently motivated argument devolves to the question of who deserves to be canceled.

Remove this hazard entirely. Make it easier to step away from an ugly thread.

This is a voluntary meritocracy, not a revolutionary committee for the eradication of hidden societal power structures. As such, the question of who to lynch today has no place in it.

[ohashi]

It's not a meritocracy if you actively push certain types of people away. Merit implies selection based on ability, if you're disqualifying swathes of people with toxicity towards them, it's not a real meritocracy at all. It's a shitty cult.

Wanting to create a less toxic environment that welcomes people and getting rid of people that are hostile to that would be taking steps towards a true meritocracy.

[at_a_remove]

Now, for the next step in achieving meritocracy, one must mention the inherent toxicity of "whiteness."

https://www.google.com/search?q=whiteness+toxic

[bigbillheck]

The 'merit' you get from keeping around someone like this has to be weighted against the 'merit' you lose from their behavior driving other people away.

For example, where's the merit in this: https://web.archive.org/web/20210625135404/https://git.tyil.... ?

[blacktriangle]

This is no longer a meritocracy, people around here will accuse you of privilege for even suggesting a meritocracy could exist.

China and Russia are laughing all the way to the bank while the baizuo bring down the rest of the world.