Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

Dr. Eggman

aka Dr. Ivo Robotnik

@PonyPon

Right, but like you said yourself, your employers initially distrusted you because of your race.

I don’t think that’s right or fair. I think that, as a new person whom they did not know, they should have treated you as a blank slate and held no preconceived judgments - good or bad - about you.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Valerie Shimmerwing

@PonyPon
That does not change my point.

If they are looking for high dedication, then they are meritocratic.

If they are looking for high dedication in a group, then they are discriminatorily meritocratic.

It is their standard and no one else’s.

Posted 6 years ago Report
Edited 6 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Scrabbleman

[screams in German]

@Fluttershy Studios
Meritocracy is pretty cool though.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Valerie Shimmerwing

@HJSDGCE
In this case, PonyPon is a new candidate for being an employee, not that he or she is being promoted, demoted, fired, or staying where he or she is, which would be a situation where meritocracy would be appropiately applied.

Posted 6 years ago Report
Edited 6 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Valerie Shimmerwing

@HJSDGCE
As for meritocracy, if it was the backbone of society at an earlier time, eugenics sentiments would easily sprout and would result in a world like that of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, but that is if people have never thought about genetic engineering; however, as in Brave New World, such technology led to manufactured slaves, the Epsilons, so meritocracy follows again as deterministic meritocracy.

Meritocracy can be pretty cool if it’s put on a leash–that is, conditional meritocracy.

Posted 6 years ago Report
Edited 6 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Cyborg_pony

@Fluttershy Studios
Meritocracy on a leash isn’t meritocracy.

Eugenics just wouldn’t sprout up, that is Alex Jones level paranoia.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Valerie Shimmerwing

@Cyborg_pony
I don’t think you understood what I meant.

Meritocracy

government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability.
a society governed by meritocracy.
a ruling or influential class of educated or skilled people.
an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth.
a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced.

Example
Pick the fastest person in a race to be a winner?
You’ve got a meritocracy of winners.

Pick a random runner to be a winner?
You don’t have a meritocracy of winners, and people will be upset, especially the fastest runner.

Explaining the Two Meritocracies in an Example
In the case of hiring someone, using meritocracy in this case would be unfair if you are considering the potential employee’s association with a group–for example–blacks, of which most are–for example–lazy and their portfolio in regard to their typing speed because you would have a meritocracy of–for example–everyone that has a good portfolio for typing fast, except most or all blacks.
–This is the case of unconditional meritocracy.

For giving the excluded a chance, you restrain your choice of meritocracy to their portfolio to hire or not hire them or take a gamble, so that you would have a meritocracy of people with a good portfolio for typing fast or no such meritocracy as you’ve randomly hired or rejected a potential employee.
–This is the case of conditional meritocracy.

About the Meritocratic Worlds
I never said an eugenic, meritocratic world would happen or said it would probably happen. To make a statement on the world of total meritocracy, it is improbable because most are concerned with social equality, and total meritocracy would oppose that goal.

The second world, the world of Brave New World, I’ve mentioned is also improbable because the book Brave New World exists, and it is a popular book that has made such a society reprehensible to most.

Posted 6 years ago Report
Edited 6 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Chilly Pepper

Tea Drinker

Speaking as a Buddhist who knows of the Buddha statues beheaded in South Korea and the 2001 destruction of giant statues thousands of years old in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, only to reveal the scripture further behind and beneath them etched into a wall that stated “all things are impermanent”, I don’t get this whole thing about the removal of statues here in the southern United States. I don’t think the removal of statues of Confederate generals or relocation to Civil War museums is going to stop a person from holding or not holding neo-Confederate beliefs.

I commended the German government, for example, for remembering, but not glorifying or pining for, a particular part of their history. _{Looking at you, historical revisionists in Japan.}

I can’t help but think of the removal of a statue of Francisco Franco in Spain where protestors to the removal started to sing Cara al Sol, the anthem of the Falange movement.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Dr. Eggman

aka Dr. Ivo Robotnik

@Chilly Pepper

The point of moving them to museums is that people can still look at them and learn from their history, without the statues being held in a place of honor.

The American government should be be honoring statues of traitors who seceded from the country and fought for slavery by displaying those statues on government property. A Civil War museum is a much more fitting place for such monuments, because they’re presented in the context of academia, not reverence.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Archonix

Retired Ass

@Dr. Eggman

Why?

Consider: there are statues of traitors and enemies all over the uk. Cromwell, the christmas-banning despot who claimed to be freeing us, has statues in most major cities. He’s out in public to remind everyone who passes by of our history, rather than being tucked away in a museum that only the dedicated seekers of knowledge will visit.

And yes, some of these status were placed by people who thought Cromwell was right, but they nevertheless remain as memorials of his misdeeds.

Like it or not, these confederate generals are historical figures who played important roles in the history of your nation. They must be publicly remembered so that their deeds can not be papered over and hidden from sight.

Posted 6 years ago Report
Edited 6 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Dr. Eggman

aka Dr. Ivo Robotnik

@Archonix

I agree they “must be publicly remembered.”

But can’t they be remembered in a place that doesn’t appear to honor their actions, like a museum?

Furthermore, even if the statues didn’t exist altogether, people would remember these figures. Most people never see these monuments in their entire lives but are still very familiar with the events of the Civil War. The removal, or in this case just relocation, of some statues isn’t going to cause collective societal amnesia.

We’ll remember what these people did, with or without the statues.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Commune

🚙

@Archonix
Well Cromwell wasn’t a racist figure by any means(at the time) and he was on the sides of the parliamentarians
Which arguably led to the liberal democracy that the U.K. enjoys today
Robert E Lee, on the other hand, fought on the side which was created to enforce slavery

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Dr. Eggman

aka Dr. Ivo Robotnik

@Commune

This is also true, and doesn’t really make the two examples equatable.

And again, before Confederacy apologists say the war was over “states’ rights,” my question is “Okay, states’ rights to do what?” (Hint: It rhymes with “Avery”)

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Chilly Pepper

Tea Drinker

@Dr. Eggman
@Dr. Eggman

I’m not sure if I was clear, but that is the position that I was arguing for, namely in favour of the display of such statues and memorabilia in museums, but there’s just been this… thing against the removal of statues or Confederate symbols from everyday usage, such as the lowering of the flag from public buildings in South Carolina. I mean, it’s still not going to stop people from purchasing various Confederate flags for different reasons and purposes, but it’s the difference between official state usage and private usage.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Dr. Eggman

aka Dr. Ivo Robotnik

@Chilly Pepper

Yeah, I got you. I was agreeing with your position and adding my thoughts to it.

And for the record, yes, even though I’m for the removal of Confederate iconography from government buildings, I’m not for banning their use by private individuals. I’m going to think poorly of people who choose to use Confederate imagery in a positive light, but as private citizens that is their right and I have no desire to take that away.

Even though, again, I will think less of people openly support the Confederacy. Which is my right.

Posted 6 years ago Report
Edited 6 years ago

Link Quote Reply

Archonix

Retired Ass

@Commune

The man was an absolutist dictator. He dismissed parliament because it wouldn’t follow his orders, imposed a religious theocracy and slaughtered my ancestors because they had the temerity to be inferior Irish stock.

Democracy came about here as a reaction against his rule, not as a result of his accomplishments.

However, you are missing the entire point. The depth of their deeds is why they must be remembered in public, not in museums that can be ignored. These American generals are not unique in their depravity, whatever you might claim.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Thanotos Omega

@Chilly Pepper
Agreed,

Ya know looking at Rome, i think the best way to avoid making a republic into an empire, is to just make sure that the leaders never have a gap in time when they are able to avoid getting lynched,

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Dr. Eggman

aka Dr. Ivo Robotnik

@Archonix

What I’m saying is that statues are hardly the most efficient way to keep them and their deeds remembered. The majority of citizens will never see these statues, or even set foot near them.

Yes, these people should be remembered, but the presence or absence of a stone monument isn’t going to make that big a difference in the public’s consciousness of who they were or what they did.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Chilly Pepper

Tea Drinker

@Dr. Eggman
Sadly the “states’ rights” argument is one that I’ve heard from one of my relatives, along with the “Irish slave myth”. You know, where indentured servitude of Irish people, as bad as that was, was equated with slavery.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Dr. Eggman

aka Dr. Ivo Robotnik

@Chilly Pepper

That was bad, but they aren’t the same thing.

Of course, even if they were equally bad, it’s still not a defense of slavery. It’s a nonsense argument.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Chilly Pepper

Tea Drinker

Here’s an admittedly stupid suggestion, but what if, as an alternative to removing every statue of a Confederate soldier, we installed a statue of Union soldiers at or near the same spot? I mean, even though the state governments of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia seceded and joined the Confederacy (Kentucky and Missouri were later admitted, but neither officially declared secession; their governments retained formal adherence to the Union), every one of those states, with, I think, the exception of South Carolina, had citizens in varying numbers who fought for the Union instead.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

RadioDemon

So many orphans~Alastor

@Chilly Pepper
indentured servitude is still a form of slavery.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Dr. Eggman

aka Dr. Ivo Robotnik

@Shirani

Right, and it was still bad, like we said.

A few differences though:

You could work your way out of being an indentured servant. Slaves were enslaved for life, typically. Indentured servitude was also something that people agreed to, while slaves were forcibly captured against their will.

I’m not defending indentured servitude. It was wrong, sick, and vile. But I think it’s clear that it’s not the same level of evil that flat-out slavery was.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Chilly Pepper

Tea Drinker

@Dr. Eggman
What made it even worse is that the children of slaves inherited their parents’ status as slaves themselves and, as such, they could be sold individually, thus breaking apart families. Another sad irony, given the “states’ rights” argument some choose to make, is that the Fugitive Slave Acts pretty much negated the rights of free states, thereby forcing some slaves fortunate enough to escape the plantations to not stop in a northern state, but to continue on to what would become Canada. (There was a province of Canada amongst other provinces and territories, but modern Canada began in 1867.)

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Scrabbleman

[screams in German]

Slavery is a really sensitive topic for you guys. I mean, my country has a history of slavery too (both as slave owners and slaves) but it’s not really the kind of issue you talk normally.

Posted 6 years ago Report

Link Quote Reply

Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!

The Travelling Pony Museum Shop!

Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!