PDA

View Full Version : The Meritocracy and Opression



parsonstreet
16th April 2016, 00:45
I think the idea of a meritocracy and of natural hierarchies is oppressive and a case of divide and conquer.
The idea is that certain peoples ideas are much more valid than most other peoples. Therefore we should be led by these superior people, accept our limitations and suppress our own ideas.

I think it creates learned helplessness, fatalism and subservience among other things in populations. This means societies are created from the biased self serving on top to govern and exploit the masses below. They are not created by everyone with equal input.

Reg Perrin
16th April 2016, 00:54
I think the idea of a meritocracy and of natural hierarchies is oppressive and a case of divide and conquer.
The idea is that certain peoples ideas are much more valid than most other peoples. Therefore we should be led by these superior people, accept our limitations and suppress our own ideas.

I think it creates learned helplessness, fatalism and subservience among other things in populations. This means societies are created from the biased self serving on top to govern and exploit the masses below. They are not created by everyone with equal input.

You're pissing about in irrelevant inconsequencies. Shut up or ship out.

squawkington
16th April 2016, 09:44
Interesting ideas. But is Parson the right person to have them?

Canuckistan
16th April 2016, 17:55
The theoretical concept of democracy is seductive and broadsides the brain of anyone with any compassion as having a plethora of "fair" about it.

But I always wonder if we are not shooting ourselves in the foot by giving equal significance to the opinion (vote, etc.) of someone who's highlight in life is watching whatever your equivalent of American Idol is and someone who actually knows something about politics and economics and foreign affairs and such.

Thus parliamentary and republic forms of government, but even so ...

Calidore
16th April 2016, 19:26
I think the idea of a meritocracy and of natural hierarchies is oppressive and a case of divide and conquer.
The idea is that certain peoples ideas are much more valid than most other peoples. Therefore we should be led by these superior people, accept our limitations and suppress our own ideas.

I think it creates learned helplessness, fatalism and subservience among other things in populations. This means societies are created from the biased self serving on top to govern and exploit the masses below. They are not created by everyone with equal input.

That's your entire argument? Shouldn't it br a bokk?

squawkington
16th April 2016, 21:05
Shouldn't it br a bokk?

:eek10:Emaybse

Canuckistan
16th April 2016, 21:23
Shouldn't it br a bokk?

It's never br'd a bokk in its life.

Calidore
16th April 2016, 22:37
Hurrah! With these extra thoguhts, it has become a bokk! The book of argument throught dialogue! And it's allmcome to be!

parsonstreet
16th April 2016, 22:55
The theoretical concept of democracy is seductive and broadsides the brain of anyone with any compassion as having a plethora of "fair" about it.


I am not referring to democracy but about ideas. I don't think that there is an elite group at the top that know how to form and run societies and what is fair distribution and rational action. :zagruz:


I do wonder who is actually in control of destiny and whether humanity is like a headless beast.

Bill. MC
16th April 2016, 23:59
I think the idea of a meritocracy and of natural hierarchies is oppressive and a case of divide and conquer.
The idea is that certain peoples ideas are much more valid than most other peoples. Therefore we should be led by these superior people, accept our limitations and suppress our own ideas.

I think it creates learned helplessness, fatalism and subservience among other things in populations. This means societies are created from the biased self serving on top to govern and exploit the masses below. They are not created by everyone with equal input.

Try earning a living and you might have an entirely different perspective.

Lord Ponsonby
17th April 2016, 07:26
You're pissing about in irrelevant inconsequencies. Shut up or ship out.

This discussion is far too intelligent for the likes of you.

Lord Ponsonby
17th April 2016, 07:29
That's your entire argument? Shouldn't it br a bokk?

It really should.

Plutonium
17th April 2016, 09:13
The theoretical concept of democracy is seductive and broadsides the brain of anyone with any compassion as having a plethora of "fair" about it.

But I always wonder if we are not shooting ourselves in the foot by giving equal significance to the opinion (vote, etc.) of someone who's highlight in life is watching whatever your equivalent of American Idol is and someone who actually knows something about politics and economics and foreign affairs and such.

Thus parliamentary and republic forms of government, but even so ...

What's the alternative? Limiting the franchise in some way, to people who have a certain level of education, perhaps? Or the old-fashioned way of basing the franchise on ownership of property. Many people think of Ancient Greece as the first democracy, but in fact only a minority of men were enfranchised. They had an army of slaves who did all the menial work, which allowed the enfranchised men to sit around discussing state affairs. Women, of course, were mere commodities.

There was something similar in the early USA. Their declaration of independence says that all men are created equal and endowed with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet some of the same men who wrote that owned slaves. I often wonder if they ever connected their thoughts.

Another idea is to give some people multiple votes. I believe that for a long time in the UK, university graduates had an additional vote. In Northern Ireland, some people in the loyalist community had multiple votes, which led to the Civil Rights movement in the late sixties, on the basis of "one man, one vote".

I think the concept of "one person one vote" is simplest. I agree with Winston Churchill, who said that democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the other forms of government that have been tried.

Plutonium
17th April 2016, 09:16
I think the idea of a meritocracy and of natural hierarchies is oppressive and a case of divide and conquer.
The idea is that certain peoples ideas are much more valid than most other peoples. Therefore we should be led by these superior people, accept our limitations and suppress our own ideas.

I think it creates learned helplessness, fatalism and subservience among other things in populations. This means societies are created from the biased self serving on top to govern and exploit the masses below. They are not created by everyone with equal input.

What alternative do you have? I think meritocracy is better than inherited wealth, whereby people's position in society is determined by accident of birth rather than by merit. Or a society in which everyone is equal, irrespective of ability, so there is no incentive for anyone to work harder and climb the ladder.

Calidore
17th April 2016, 09:26
Try earning a living and you might have an entirely different perspective.

it's full of suppositions and half-concieved facts anyway. ignore it.

Canuckistan
17th April 2016, 18:26
<snip for bandwidth>
I think the concept of "one person one vote" is simplest. I agree with Winston Churchill, who said that democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the other forms of government that have been tried.

If I had a better alternative I would happily preach it.

And the above Churchill quote is probably valid. But it does allow things like Donald Trump.