[Video] Meritocracy │█║▌ 𝚅𝙴𝚁𝚈 𝙸𝙼𝙿𝙾𝚁𝚃𝙰𝙽𝚃 𝙳𝙾𝙲𝚂 - Peter Coffin
6 replies, posted
It's a couple months old, but I think it's very relevant.
as someone with pretty bad astigmatism, I fucking despise that filter he puts over everything
Spends the first ~7 minutes on semantic trash. Having similar words in eachothers definitions doesn't make them circular, especially not when there are 3 other words in the same definition. He plays with the words in an obnnoxious way to confuse and redefine terms that have clear meanings. "Merit" isn't bullshit because you think the wrong things are being rewarded. That's a completely different question to the one he posed immediately beforehand, but he managed to snake his way there because of all the obnoxious wordplay.
He could have made his point for the entire video in one sentence, but instead drew it out and obfuscated his ideas to... make it more annoying to respond to, i guess? Exploit the youtube algorithm? Here let me summarize: "I don't like meritocracy or putting it on a pedestal because i think we use bad metrics when defining what warrants merit"
my response to the video: I already agree that this is a problem and that there are people who link merit to things that aren't really meritocratic, there are obvious flaws in these systems even though you didnt bother explaining anything deeper than your assertion and some anecdotes. Capitalism isn't the be all end all, i certainly hope this isn't the peak of human inguinity. Now that the entire point of the video is addressed, let me point out that this 30 minute video is garbage, it flails around repeating the same thing without doing much more than attacking points it doesnt seem to understand, it even gamedrops and goes for a "these people" because apparantly we needed those tangents. Thank god for the 2x speed, and the unfortunate part is that he got a view to boost his own shitty youtube merit counter.
The point isn't that the wrong things are being rewarded, it's that having a system that relies only on merit is entirely based on whatever the definition of merit is, which is never going to be objective or entirely representative. It is also naturally biased towards the already powerful group that are able to define what merit is and will naturally define it towards their own interests.
Merit is easy to define in limited scopes. You can strive to expand those scopes. It's not perfect, but the solution isn't "MERIT IS BULLSHIT" in flashing letters, it's "well we strive to reward merit accurately but it's a goal that can't be achieved, but the pursuit still matters".
Arguably, journalists cannot be objective. If that is true, then it doesnt mean "throw all objectivity out the window because OBJECTIVITY IS BULLSHIT". It means it's more complicated than that, the pursuit of objectivity is a worthy goal with tangible benefits even if you cant reach perfect objectivity. Meanwhile, the video is reductive and spends a huge amount of time on wordplay without addressing what i just addressed in just a few sentences. The video doesn't provide an alternative, it doesn't weigh the concequences to having no merit considered at all (which is way worse than the downsides i agree exist, like the bias in meritocratic systems you described), it's just "yo merit is bullshit btw gamergate"
I'd say the argument isn't to do away entirely with merit, but specifically meritocracy, or a society that relies solely on merit.
I really didn't parse that from the video. The allcaps "merit is bullshit" thing is a direct quote and was heavily emphasized after the first ~7 minutes of setup, and over the course of the video the examples used to echo this idea were examples from our own society... but our current society doesn't rely solely on merit already. Despite their limited form we do have some safety nets and social programs that exist to prevent a "pure rich man's merit" hyper capitalist society. We take care of our elderly and the sick, we don't do it enough by any means, but if the point was specifically about a pure meritocracy then it would have had to reduce or oversimplify society into something it isn't, which is what i mean by this video being reductive.
It's reduced the question to a problem that doesn't exist, redefined terminology where convenient, gone with the simplest possible interpretations and examples, and didnt consider the concequences at all. I'm seriously annoyed that so little was said in such a long video. This might be one of those things where, if you already know the youtuber, know you agree with them and have a lot of similar ideas its possible to get more meaning from a video than is actually presented, the video's meandering style would definitely contribute since it jumps around a lot and leaves a lot for the viewer to fill in. Some videos are only really good for organizing your own thoughts rather than convincing anyone else of anything or discussing or teaching the ideas, and thats what this seems like.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.