Social Justice Warriors Thread

[SuburbanFarmer]

If they're going to criticize meritocracy, you do it from a results based perspective.

Meritocracy is results based, so again, these people are actually stupid and their screed, embarrassing.

Ok, so the best novel ever made is the one that made the most money.

50 shades of grey is one of the best pieces of literature ever made.

Do you find that to be true?

The American way of determining good art, "did it make money? No? Then it's not good."

“Merit” does not imply monetary value - though ideally it would.

Current system certainly seems to have that confused.

[DBTrek]

Ok, so the best novel ever made is the one that made the most money.

50 shades of grey is one of the best pieces of literature ever made.

Do you find that to be true?

The American way of determining good art, "did it make money? No? Then it's not good."

Because art is subjective, everything is subjective, therefore meritocracy can’t exist.

I take it you signed the list... because that’s some A-Grade stupidity right there.

[jediuser598]

Meritocracy is results based, so again, these people are actually stupid and their screed, embarrassing.

Ok, so the best novel ever made is the one that made the most money.

50 shades of grey is one of the best pieces of literature ever made.

Do you find that to be true?

The American way of determining good art, "did it make money? No? Then it's not good."

“Merit” does not imply monetary value - though ideally it would.

Current system certainly seems to have that confused.

How else do you evaluate merit, except by value?

All things being equal, that which makes the most has the most value, thus has the most merit.

[DBTrek]

Raise your hand if you’re shocked that the people sympathetic to anti-meritocracy don’t understand the difference between metrics, Art, money, value, and productivity.

It’s all just a confusing word-soup created to exploit brown and gay people to them.
Kill whitey.
Derp.

[jediuser598]

Ok, so the best novel ever made is the one that made the most money.

50 shades of grey is one of the best pieces of literature ever made.

Do you find that to be true?

The American way of determining good art, "did it make money? No? Then it's not good."

Because art is subjective, everything is subjective, therefore meritocracy can’t exist.

I take it you signed the list... because that’s some A-Grade stupidity right there.

I didn't say meritocracy can't exist. Lol watching the new season of Iron fist and it's like "Well DBtrek leads with 'asshole.'" Your stupidity really is out front on a normal basis.

Meritocracy can exist, but it's a "your mileage may vary" sort of thing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

You ridicule the idea of judging art based on merit, but value based merit, that's a real thing.

You are intuitively repulsed by the notion that "the best art makes the most money, all things being equal" but that's what a meritocracy demands.

Raise your hand if you’re shocked that the people sympathetic to anti-meritocracy don’t understand the difference between metrics, Art, money, value, and productivity.

It’s all just a confusing word-soup created to exploit brown and gay people to them.
Kill whitey.
Derp.

You really can't reason your way out of a wet paper bag.

[doc_loliday]

He just told you. He said that value is not always correlated to monetary gain. A machine that performs faster or more efficiently but doesn't sell because of say, lack of marketing, is an example. Why the word games?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Ok, so the best novel ever made is the one that made the most money.

50 shades of grey is one of the best pieces of literature ever made.

Do you find that to be true?

The American way of determining good art, "did it make money? No? Then it's not good."

“Merit” does not imply monetary value - though ideally it would.

Current system certainly seems to have that confused.

How else do you evaluate merit, except by value?

All things being equal, that which makes the most has the most value, thus has the most merit.

What's the monetary value of a life well lived? Or natural beauty? Or a DaVinci sketch? Or a great craftsman that only makes 1 sword per year?

Much of what we value has little or no monetary value. Actual merit is mostly subjective. We just try to attach value to it, because that's what current system demands.

[DBTrek]

Meritocracy can exist, but it's a "your mileage may vary" sort of thing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Meritocracy rewards AFTER performance, so it actually always works, as a reward system. Better wages, high level positions, fame, wealth, all that comes AFTER the core performance is evaluated. Derp.

You are intuitively repulsed by the notion that "the best art makes the most money, all things being equal" but that's what a meritocracy demands.

No, meritocracy doesn’t demand anything in regards to a subjective endeavor like art. In fact, meritocracy simply provides a multitude of varying rewards (not just money) for demonstrated performance.
Derp.

Thanks for treating us to another rousing episode of Left Side of the Bell Curve Needs Obvious Shit Explained Again.

[TheReal_ND]

Did anyone post this yet?

The Post-Meritocracy Manifesto

Meritocracy is a founding principle of the open source movement, and the ideal of meritocracy is perpetuated throughout our field in the way people are recruited, hired, retained, promoted, and valued.

But meritocracy has consistently shown itself to mainly benefit those with privilege, to the exclusion of underrepresented people in technology. The idea of merit is in fact never clearly defined; rather, it seems to be a form of recognition, an acknowledgement that “this person is valuable insofar as they are like me.”

(If you are not familiar with criticisms of meritocracy, please refer to the resources on this page.)

It is time that we as an industry abandon the notion that merit is something that can be measured, can be pursued on equal terms by every individual, and can ever be distributed fairly.

What does a post-meritocracy world look like? It is founded on a core set of values and principles, an affirmation of belonging that applies to everyone who engages in the practice of software development.

Our Values

These core values and principles are:

• We do not believe that our value as human beings is intrinsically tied to our value as knowledge workers. Our professions do not define us; we are more than the work we do.
• We believe that interpersonal skills are at least as important as technical skills.
• We can add the most value as professionals by drawing on the diversity of our identities, backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. Homogeneity is an antipattern.
• We can be successful while leading rich, full lives. Our success and value is not dependent on exerting all of our energy on contributing to software.
• We have the obligation to use our positions of privilege, however tenuous, to improve the lives of others.
• We must make room for people who are not like us to enter our field and succeed there. This means not only inviting them in, but making sure that they are supported and empowered.
• We have an ethical responsibility to refuse to work on software that will negatively impact the well-being of other people.
• We acknowledge the value of non-technical contributors as equal to the value of technical contributors.
• We understand that working in our field is a privilege, not a right. The negative impact of toxic people in the workplace or the larger community is not offset by their technical contributions.
• We are devoted to practicing compassion and not contempt. We refuse to belittle other people because of their choices of tools, techniques, or languages.
• The field of software development embraces technical change, and is made better by also accepting social change.
• We strive to reflect our values in everything that we do. We recognize that values that are espoused but not practiced are not values at all.

Signatories
............

Signed.... and now we wait and see if my name appears

[jediuser598]

“Merit” does not imply monetary value - though ideally it would.

Current system certainly seems to have that confused.

How else do you evaluate merit, except by value?

All things being equal, that which makes the most has the most value, thus has the most merit.

What's the monetary value of a life well lived? Or natural beauty? Or a DaVinci sketch? Or a great craftsman that only makes 1 sword per year?

Much of what we value has little or no monetary value. Actual merit is mostly subjective. We just try to attach value to it, because that's what current system demands.

Here's my argument, 50 Shades of Grey started out as a fan fiction based off of Twilight. That's hardly something that would have received more marketing than others in its field, yet it shoots up to #1. In any meritocracy, we would certainly say that in comparison to other pieces of work, this piece of work has the most merit. This piece generated the most value.

We should take this piece, when we teach others about quality literature, and we should teach it in literature classes on how to make great art. There's a definite craft to literature, to art, and this piece works. It should be taught.

It's a "what makes good art? What made the most money?"