[josteink]

> Lack of qualifications is not a valid criticism.

On the contrary I would consider that the absolutely most justified, objective criticism one could find.

But then I’m one of those guys who thinks DEI (as preached by today’s social activists) is horseshit, and I think meritocracy is a good thing.

I’m not sure how those things are seen from within, by people more left leaning than me.

[lproven]

> I think meritocracy is a good thing.

The term "meritocracy" was coined as a satirical parody of effective governance.

https://www.routledge.com/The-Rise-of-the-Meritocracy/Young/...

It was meant to be a negative, and is used as a pejorative: as a very bad idea that became effectively a swearword.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41427674

Be careful what you wish for.

[r-w]

“It […] is used as a pejorative” Not to nitpick, but it clearly isn’t used that way by everyone, certainly not by the person you’re replying to.

[lproven]

It is used _in the book_ as a pejorative. That is the explanation from the definition that I link to.

The problem when a prominent wealthy company attempts to run its business on the basis of meritocracy is illustrated by the existence of projects such as GNOME, systemd, Wayland, and Flatpak.

[pseudalopex]

What qualifications did she lack?