Affirmative Action is a No Go Says Supreme Court...

I don't give a fuck what klanners think, you second rate David Duke.

There you have it. Meritocracy is a straight line to the klan. Fucking hell..

A an aside, MvM was an interesting case simply because it did introduce Judicial Review. There was nothing of the sort in England at the time (every act passed by Parliament was by definition constitutional) and Madison didn't think to add it to the Constitution because in his mind a government elected by We The People would never act against its own Constitutional rules. It's the same reason he didn't want to include a Bill of Rights at first; after all, no government of, by, and for the people would ever act against the same people.

He definitely got that one wrong.

Seriously, what is it with the vocal pitch thing?
Ben Shapiro sounds like he sucks fucking helium, and you're never after him for it.
Wonder why...

"Meritocracy" is just the modern "States Rights." There's always a new euphemism to hide your racism under.

Yeah, if you turn the goalposts into Salvadore Dali pasta goo.

Guess what, chucklefuck? I can't stand him for more than a couple seconds, either.

The rap edits are funny, though.

Supreme Court: You're all equal and none of you get special treatment based on race.
Leftists: See? Racism!

It's what racists like @Uncle Albert have always done.

He always says this when he's about to tell a whopper of a lie he can hide behind "you'd have to hack my history to prove me wrong".
It's his tell.

No, it has a very clear meaning that is very inconvenient to your irrational sense of entitlement . There is nothing racist about holding everyone to the exact same standards. You and your "soft bigotry of low expectations " are not doing anyone any favors.

The unfortunate thing is that for the most part, meritocracy is a myth. In most fields, there is not really an objective way to determine Person A is strictly/generally better than Person B. And even in those fields where you would have stats that establish a hierarchy of good, there can be numerous factors that lead to a person who is objectively better getting less rewards. Pat Mahomes has had more success during his tenure in the NFL than anyone else active besides Brady and maybe one or two others by the numbers. But he's the seventh-best paid quarterback going into 2023. Colin Kaepernick's stats may not have been world-beating the last when he was in the NFL, but they certainly should have been good enough to merit a backup spot somewhere in the league if it made its picks purely on talent.

In most cases, there's a group of people who seem like they meet the qualifications to do the job and there are a whole bunch of arbitrary factors why qualified Person A gets selected over qualified Person B. And there are also numerous times when unqualified people get the not over qualified people, or objectively less qualified people get the nod over more qualified people. One of the many arbitrary factors that often gets employed is "That person reminds me of me." When the people making the decisions are disproportionately white and male, guess what happens?

It's weird that you commented when Demi was talking about legacy admissions and pay for play. Those are two of the prominent ways that show that meritocracy has little overlap with the system as it stands.

Against the backdrop of reality, pretending that we actually abide by any real sort of meritocracy and it just so happens that disproportionately white people and males end up being on top is a joke.

Why would you assume that is a lie? Because you paint yourself into a corner with your silly strawman arguments, that's why.

Thanks, mediocre white man, for explaining the rules of the system that favors you.

Says the diaper-soaker who cries about transes on Trek, and outspoken feminists in Marvel movies.

Got them all in a tizzy about how leftists are the real racists.

Could be doesn't necessarily mean must. It's a whole other conversation to have when you start looking into the percentage of black officers asking for combat arms as opposed to a cushy office job or the percentage of non-white pilot students that get multiple attempts at fight school versus white ones that are "one and done" when it comes to washing out.

Why would you answer you own questions? Because you clean training potties with your mouth, that's why.

Colin K may very well have been a clubhouse cancer or just a royal PITA to coaches and management. Fair to middling stats or not, if his teammates or bosses can't stand him, he isn't getting kept short of being a superstar.

Legacies are always getting a pass so long as daddy is rich enough to buy a library. You could have someone who can't read (and I don't mean an athlete but a normal guy) and he's getting into the school of his choice if daddy greases the right palms or writes a huge check to the endowment fund. That's just the way of the world.

And admissions is at least somewhat objective. What were the SAT/ACT scores? GPA? Class place? Extracurricular activities?

Shut up, new guy, no one's listening to you.

Would it help if I had a one dollar bill hanging out of my zipper? That's how I get your mother to listen to me.

Do our die-hard meritocrats believe that colleges should continue to admit based on legacy preferences?

Do you think that the U.S.'s high schools and middle schools create equitable opportunity as they stand now?

I'd say it's self-evident that some schools are generally better than others because of how schools are funded, how safe (or unsafe) the schools and the neighborhoods are, the quality of the teachers, etc. etc. And thus, the notion that there is equity of opportunity in American schools has not been close to true, and doesn't look to change any time in the near future. And when the lack of equality of opportunity is in many cases blatantly on racial and class lines, well...

That doesn't mean there can't be other, merit-based factors contributing to their pay.

There's a lot of supposition in that, and you keep jumping between contexts. Yes, some things can be determined by giving everyone the same pass/fail test, while others, particularly where public interest is a priority, popularity will be taken into consideration. If we are talking about college admissions, I would run it as a strict meritocracy, and yes, I would exclude legacy and big donor admissions.

In pary, yes. Now I have addressed that and you can be happy again.

That's either a defeatist attitude or a disguised fear that a true meritocracy would not achieve the ends you desire.

Absolutely not.

No, but that isn't the issue here. Affirmative Action is.

I don't think "equitable" is a valid goal. If everyone has the same teacher and textbook, everyone has an EQUAL opportunity. And please don't come at me with that "math is racist" crap.

But when two people from the same neighborhood and school achieve vastly different outcomes, you can no longer blame it on external factors. And who is MAKING those schools unsafe? Raise your kids not to be violent, ignorant little fuckheads.

I'm always amazed to think that in the post-slavery days the first thing ex-slaves did was try to get an education and in the 1950s black kids and their parents faced dogs and firehoses and the Bull Connors to go to schools and today far too many in the black community see education as just "acting white" and something to be avoided and that is entirely an internal problem

You may not be Volpone or John Castle or Dinner or any number of the old posters who used to use the free speech rule of the board to be the fucking ass they wanted to be, but you sure are as ignorant as they were. … and probably still are.

Oh, well in that case I totally change my mind.

Is it too late to be righteously indignant or do I need to wait for a different topic?