Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Yes yes, nothing can be done. All is futile. It's always the same shit with you people.
I don't think I said "nothing can be done". I just said meritocracy is impossible. And since it's impossible, we need a different system we can actually achieve. It won't be without flaws, but we can still aim to have LESS flaws than currently.
You don't improve by pretending nothing's wrong.
Why would I want to discuss anything with someone who will contradict themselves in the first two sentences they mutter.
There are options other than "meritocracy" and "nothing", you know. It's worrying that didn't occur to you.
This is the common definition of meritocracy:
Yes, I dismiss you off hand for the very bold claim that meritocracy is impossible.
You made the bold claim that a system could be designed to prevent cheating, then asked if a meritocracy could exist. I said no. I also backed up my claim with actual reasoning, while you just stuffed your fingers in your ears and made loud noises.
Did you actually WANT people to respond to you, or did you just want people to agree with you? Because we don't.
Show me that claim. I don't know why I suffer through this idoicy.
Okay, you're clearly not even reading your OWN comments now, so I don't know why I expected you to read mine. You clearly don't want people to respond to you, so I won't. Goodbye.
Learn the difference between a premise and a claim. Or is that the problem here, you assume all premises are actually claims?