DemSoc unity

 

Democrat Socialism
            Transformative Democrat Socialism

False News is Demsoc’s Lysenko refuting Age of Enlightenment genes and chromosomes with Intelligent Design.  False news is Truth everlasting shot from a muzzle – ceaseless, boundless,  timeless, and ever self-perfecting moment to moment within an eternal NOW.  The Earth is flat and kind.

https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/09/leftist-war-on-meritocracy-becomes-overt.html

DemSoc badthink:  freedom (including freedom of speech, academic freedoms, freedom of assembly etc.), democracy (with the respect to elected leaders), family, natural roles of sexes, manliness and muscles, courage, women’s physical beauty and smile, nation, competition, faith, harmony within a society, hard knowledge, industrialization, fossil fuels, fiscal responsibility, accountability, meat, sugar, fat… meritocracy.

That…or DemSoc cancels you.

3+
avataravataravatar

16 thoughts on “DemSoc unity”

  1. I can’t say I saw this coming.  But I have read  a lot about it lately. And I reckon it was the inevitable next step.  Legislation can level,the playing field, but if you want all players to get the same scores, you HAVE to handicap the ones with greater natural abilities.  Mother Nature, she play favorites.
    I totally buy into the idea that people can have different kinds of intelligence.  When I volunteered at adult literacy tutoring, I noticed my dyslexic students had extraordinary skill at reading and charming (or manipulating, if you insist) other people.  Some of them were also smart.  But as one of my literacy mentors gently advised, some of them are not as smart as their enthusiastic tutors think they are.

    Here’s what it comes down to: we are all going to have to “suffer fools gladly”.  It’ll be a crime not to do so.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  2. …But y’know, what’re we worried about?  The most intelligent people will always rise to the top.  That will happen even if they hafta play dumb to do it.

    1+
    avatar
  3. The great blind spot of DemSoc is wealth creation. Their ardent faith assumes it will proceed as always. I guess they haven’t read Atlas Shrugged. As soon as the first wealth tax is enacted and people are forced to sell off assets to pay taxes- the bottom will start to fall out. Ahoy! Tidal wave of misery crashes ashore, sweeping the architects first before it. Writ small, we may be seeing a microcosm in pro sports. Fans are only effective as paying entities. The NBA and NFL will soon learn you can’t coerce fan-dom. Like wealth production, attendance at sports venues (or on TV) as a paying customer wanting to watch multi-millionaires lecture them about their racism – is optional, not obligatory.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  4. The Left has been playing this both ways for a long time, since before the Age of Obama.

    They claim to be the Party of Science and blast conservatives as “anti-science” at every turn.  But science is White, and they actually hate science.  Civil service test scores get added points for intersectionality, and this practice has been going on for a long while.  Just kick that up a couple of notches, and we can be governed by random names from the phone book, only with white males screened out.

    2+
    avataravatar
  5. Hypatia:
    I can’t say I saw this coming.

    That’s ’cause you never read Michael Young, the Baron Young of Dartington, old-school leftist, and father of right-winger Toby Young, who wrote about this back in the 1950s. The thing is, the elder Young was not entirely wrong about the dystopian elements of meritocracy, as Derb explains in his brief review of Young’s book:

    I think most Americans, if put to the question, would say that meritocracy — rewards proportional to one’s ability and effort — is an ideal; much more desirable, at least, than an aristocracy of birth. The notion that a meritocracy may not be stable, may in fact produce an aristocracy of birth, is not welcome to us. It may none the less be true.

    The truth is that we have arrived at this pretty pass because of meritocracy. I fully expect someone to patiently explain to me that credentialism is not the same as merit. Perhaps so, yet our elites were all educated at the best schools and excelled at a time when these schools did accept applicants based on merit and grades were not inflated. Look at what it got us. Careful what you wish for.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  6. drlorentz:

    Hypatia:
    I can’t say I saw this coming.

    That’s ’cause you never read Michael Young, the Baron Young of Dartington, old-school leftist, and father of right-winger Toby Young, who wrote about this back in the 1950s. The thing is, the elder Young was not entirely wrong about the dystopian elements of meritocracy, as Derb explains in his brief review of Young’s book:

    I think most Americans, if put to the question, would say that meritocracy — rewards proportional to one’s ability and effort — is an ideal; much more desirable, at least, than an aristocracy of birth. The notion that a meritocracy may not be stable, may in fact produce an aristocracy of birth, is not welcome to us. It may none the less be true.

    The truth is that we have arrived at this pretty pass because of meritocracy. I fully expect someone to patiently explain to me that credentialism is not the same as merit. Perhaps so, yet our elites were all educated at the best schools and excelled at a time when these schools did accept applicants based on merit and grades were not inflated. Look at what it got us. Careful what you wish for.

    I keep coming back to this comment. To some extent meritocracy may create an aristocracy of birth, I reckon, although most  “elite” colleges have hedged about with thorns their natural desire to give some consideration to the children of alumni who have faithfully supported them . OTOH, hasn’t it been 50 years since schools stopped accepting students based on merit and Uninflated grades?  How did Michelle Obama get to Princeton and then Harvard Law?  How did Barack get to Harvard and then become President of the Law Review, a spot which used to go to the very highest achieving scholar  and now is an elective position; despite the fact that no one can find any articles B. Hussein ( he really had it all!) published, his classmates put him There because “he was storybook, man!”  as Biden in better days accurately remarked.    No , credentialism is NOT the same as merit.  In fact credentials are now pretty much no longer based on merit at all.   We have never been allowed to find out the Obamas’ grades at any of the elite institutions they attended, f’rinstance.
    But there always were certain areas where you couldn’t fake it: Math’n’science.  That’s precisely why those disciplines are now under attack as “white”.  Even though we have already seen disastrous results of choosing, say, an engineering firm based on the color of the principals’ skin instead of the actual “merit” of their engineering knowledge; I remember some huge, recently finished bridge which collapsed a few years ago, where it turned out that the contract had been awarded based on minority preference. No, it is a truism that “you can’t fix stupid”.  But you can award it an impressive  degree, and that goes a long way toward normalizing it.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  7. Hypatia:

    drlorentz:

    Hypatia:
    I can’t say I saw this coming.

    That’s ’cause you never read Michael Young, the Baron Young of Dartington, old-school leftist, and father of right-winger Toby Young, who wrote about this back in the 1950s. The thing is, the elder Young was not entirely wrong about the dystopian elements of meritocracy, as Derb explains in his brief review of Young’s book:

    I think most Americans, if put to the question, would say that meritocracy — rewards proportional to one’s ability and effort — is an ideal; much more desirable, at least, than an aristocracy of birth. The notion that a meritocracy may not be stable, may in fact produce an aristocracy of birth, is not welcome to us. It may none the less be true.

    The truth is that we have arrived at this pretty pass because of meritocracy. I fully expect someone to patiently explain to me that credentialism is not the same as merit. Perhaps so, yet our elites were all educated at the best schools and excelled at a time when these schools did accept applicants based on merit and grades were not inflated. Look at what it got us. Careful what you wish for.

    I keep coming back to this comment. To some extent meritocracy may create an aristocracy of birth, I reckon, although most  “elite” colleges have hedged about with thorns their natural desire to give some consideration to the children of alumni who have faithfully supported them . OTOH, hasn’t it been 50 years since schools stopped accepting students based on merit and Uninflated grades?  How did Michelle Obama get to Princeton and then Harvard Law?  How did Barack get to Harvard and then become President of the Law Review, a spot which used to go to the very highest achieving scholar  and now is an elective position; despite the fact that no one can find any articles B. Hussein ( he really had it all!) published, his classmates put him There because “he was storybook, man!”  as Biden in better days accurately remarked.    No , credentialism is NOT the same as merit.  In fact credentials are now pretty much no longer based on merit at all.   We have never been allowed to find out the Obamas’ grades at any of the elite institutions they attended, f’rinstance.
    But there always were certain areas where you couldn’t fake it: Math’n’science.  That’s precisely why those disciplines are now under attack as “white”.  Even though we have already seen disastrous results of choosing, say, an engineering firm based on the color of the principals’ skin instead of the actual “merit” of their engineering knowledge; I remember some huge, recently finished bridge which collapsed a few years ago, where it turned out that the contract had been awarded based on minority preference. No, it is a truism that “you can’t fix stupid”.  But you can award it an impressive  degree, and that goes a long way toward normalizing it.

    We hold this truth to be self-evident: that as democracy is the worst political system (except for all the others), merit is the worst means of judging value of actual accomplishments (and Hypatia’s point distinguishing credentialism from merit is of the essence), except for all the others.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  8. Hypatia:
    No, it is a truism that “you can’t fix stupid”.  But you can award it an impressive  degree, and that goes a long way toward normalizing it.

    Yes; this is how our “meritocracy” is becoming “idiocracy.”

    I did not mind when there were slots at the university that were reserved for minority scholarship students, nor that special remedial classes were provided for those students.  They still had to make the grades.

    In the 1970s and 80s in a public university, I saw two kinds of minority scholarship students.  There were the ones who busted their asses to make it and ended up thriving as solid professionals who could help other minorities into the business world.

    Then there were the second group of minority students, who were gaming the system, living the high life on stipends, flunking out of their chosen major at the end of sophomore year and transferring to major in education or marketing.   They also flourished in a world where minority advancements were badges of honor for the big bosses who did not have to care that they were saddling work groups with less competent staff.   Those folk migrated into government jobs because they could continue to take advantage of minority preferences in the System.

    And so to today, when intersectionality points count for more than actual knowledge, skills or accomplishments.

    Evidently, flunking out of a major is no longer a thing.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  9. Hypatia:
    OTOH, hasn’t it been 50 years since schools stopped accepting students based on merit and Uninflated grades?  How did Michelle Obama get to Princeton and then Harvard Law?  How did Barack get to Harvard and then become President of the Law Review…

    Many of the leading Democrats are much older the Barry & Michelle. Sleepy Joe graduated more than 50 years ago. Barry was an affirmative-action hire by the party elders. He never ran the show.

    More significantly, the people who dominate the culture (universities, entertainment) indeed are from the prior era. All those professors that we love to hate and all the Hollywood movers & shakers are products of the meritocracy. Just because they’re smart doesn’t mean that can’t be evil.

    2+
    avataravatar
  10. MJBubba:

    I did not mind when there were slots at the university that were reserved for minority scholarship students,

    This is the crux of the problem: conservatives accepting the premise of the Left, in this case it’s affirmative action. This is why the conservative trophy case is empty. Conservatives have conserved nothing.

    MJBubba:

    And so to today, when intersectionality points count for more than actual knowledge, skills or accomplishments.

    How do you think we got here?

    1+
    avatar
  11. drlorentz:

    MJBubba:

    I did not mind when there were slots at the university that were reserved for minority scholarship students,

    This is the crux of the problem: conservatives accepting the premise of the Left, in this case it’s affirmative action. This is why the conservative trophy case is empty. Conservatives have conserved nothing.

    MJBubba:

    And so to today, when intersectionality points count for more than actual knowledge, skills or accomplishments.

    How do you think we got here?

    In the 1970s we all still remembered Jim Crow.  Corrective action was warranted.

    Over fifty years later, after two generations of intersectionality preferences, there is no rational basis to continue that system.

    1+
    avatar
  12. MJBubba:
    Intersectionality journalism.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/20/gannett-usa-today-diversity-commitment-journalism/5604473002/

    Gannett, the owner of USA TODAY and more than 260 local news operations, announced a broad initiative Thursday to make its workforce as diverse as the country by 2025 and to expand the number of journalists focused on covering issues related to race and identity, social justice and equality.

    Diversity” will now include  People “differently intelligenced.”

    2+
    avataravatar
  13. drlorentz:

    Hypatia:
    OTOH, hasn’t it been 50 years since schools stopped accepting students based on merit and Uninflated grades?  How did Michelle Obama get to Princeton and then Harvard Law?  How did Barack get to Harvard and then become President of the Law Review…

    Many of the leading Democrats are much older the Barry & Michelle. Sleepy Joe graduated more than 50 years ago. Barry was an affirmative-action hire by the party elders. He never ran the show.

    More significantly, the people who dominate the culture (universities, entertainment) indeed are from the prior era. All those professors that we love to hate and all the Hollywood movers & shakers are products of the meritocracy. Just because they’re smart doesn’t mean that can’t be evil.

    Oh, no argument.  In evil,  as in every  other field of human endeavor,  intelligence is a plus.

    But at least if people ARE smart, there’s a fighting chance they’ll see the light at  some point.

    @drlorentz, I’m not arguing with you; I just don’t quite see what you’re getting at. Shouldn’t intelligence be, like,  a sine qua non  for people in charge of other humans? I know you must agree that it has  to be.   So what are you saying: that we’re measuring it wrong, deliberately or otherwise?

    0

  14. MJBubba:
    Intersectionality journalism.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/20/gannett-usa-today-diversity-commitment-journalism/5604473002/

    Gannett, the owner of USA TODAY and more than 260 local news operations, announced a broad initiative Thursday to make its workforce as diverse as the country by 2025 and to expand the number of journalists focused on covering issues related to race and identity, social justice and equality.

    Will anybody notice? Can it become any more unreadable than it already is?

    1+
    avatar

Leave a Reply