[jordemort]

This has been (rightfully, IMO) flagged, so I'm screaming into the void a bit here, but:

- Claiming that you can build a system that is entirely based on merit is equivalent to claiming that you are able to determine merit in a way that is completely objective and free of implicit or systematic bias. This is a BIG claim.

- There is no such revolutionary method of determining merit being proposed - in this case, "merit" seems to be shorthand for "going back to the way things were before all this DEI stuff came along."

[raxxorrax]

> This is a BIG claim.

Certainly, probably unachievable. I am not really a fan of what some call a meritocracy, it is complete hogwash. If I must chose I prefer it to active racial discrimination however because making admission not factor in some alleged inequality between ethnic demographics is certainly preferable.

Where does ethnic discrimination help? In stoking ethnic conflicts and the deteriorating situation in the US is certainly partially caused by an insistence of said discrimination where undereducated people making decisions that are quite unwise.

[jordemort]

> I am not really a fan of what some call a meritocracy, it is complete hogwash. If I must chose I prefer it to active racial discrimination however because making admission not factor in some alleged inequality between ethnic demographics is certainly preferable.

If you agree that meritocracy is hogwash, then what do you propose in its stead? If we know that "meritocracy" as commonly practiced produces results that are not actually representative of the population, then should we not correct for that, at least until we are able to refine our practice of meritocracy such that it does not introduce this error?

> In stoking ethnic conflicts and the deteriorating situation in the US is certainly partially caused by an insistence of said discrimination where undereducated people making decisions that are quite unwise.

Can you clarify, please? It seems like you're making vague allusions here to things "everyone knows" but I can't quite parse your intentions. Can you give an explicit example of what you are talking about?

[raxxorrax]

> what do you propose in its stead?

Not playing that game. The first step is to remove racial discrimination for hiring and education. You don't need to correct for that because it will correct itself after some time, but only if we stop discriminating.

[jordemort]

> Not playing that game.

What game are you playing, then?

> You don't need to correct for that because it will correct itself after some time, but only if we stop discriminating.

How much time? Do we start counting from the end of the Civil War, or just from the 1960s? It seems like your approach has had plenty of time to prove itself and failed to produce results.

[raxxorrax]

> How much time?

Until the negative effects of discrimination vanishes. That can take multiple generations and we have seen incredible steps in the right direction. The answer is certainly not more discrimination, that would be a ridiculous conclusion.