(untitled)

What exactly is wrong with the idea of meritocracy?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, Please elaborate in your post in future, please state your own thoughts on meritocracy and a summary of the concept and also provide any other relevant information )

It values exoteric material progress over staying in accordance with traditions and caste. If everyone was meritocratic, all the ethnicities of the world would have to hand their whole existence and traditions over to east Asians, Askhenazi Jews and white Europeans. Such an Ayn Randian world is a dystopia centered purely around the economy and consumerism, and not the otherworldly ideals that have sustained different ethnic and religious groups for eons. The egalitarians intend to entirely reverse this system. They want to put the weak, meek, and pitiful on top while the righteous leaders are relegated to the bottom, because according to them the weak are weak because the top forcibly subjugated them, instead of the weak falling to the bottom because of their own mistakes which were committed thousands of years ago. This is going to end up like that British rape gang thread isn't it? We should create a politics/zaibatsu board to quarantine this stuff away from /mega/ to be honest, I feel like threads like these ruin the general comfy vibe of the board and just incite division between lainons who usually get along well.

>>7262 >hand their whole existence and traditions over to east Asians, Askhenazi Jews and white Europeans They might be more intelligence on average, but it doesn't mean that there are plenty of smart blacks and stupid yellows. And it's not like we have too many intelligent people on our hands. >the weak falling to the bottom because of their own mistakes which were committed thousands of years ago. It's hardly their own fault then, only that of of their ancestors. But of course, even if it's not your fault if you were poorly educated, I still don't want you building the bridge I will cross everyday on my way to work. Each group of people is (should be) free to chose the system under which they live, but I want to live in a meritocratic system. >We should create a politics/zaibatsu board Been there, done that.

The wheels are already in motions. Meritocracy gave us enough tools to get to political position which allows for better and easier global control. The socialism that evolved out of tribal evolutionary psychology of "gotta share to survive" kinda works in rich white majority countries because they already have aformentioned brain patterns for surviving such belt thightening situations. This is only their beginning of the end mind you, the push for one world government under socialism/communism is starting with strong right wing nationalism, protectionism and creating economic blocks. A game theory in which position of one player orchestrates a dance of everyone around him. The west didn't loose any economic or political power they might have had in last century, they gave it away to give false hopes to other guys in order to make them unite. And thus, blocks against blocks, unions against unions. Breaking apart, creating new relationships and friendships. A fungal infection if you will where goal is pretty obvious to anyone who really wants to look. All branches of economy saturated and monopolized, limited amount of workforce and resources giving an illusion of zero sum game, no more territories to be conquered.... it is either convergance in unification or stailmate against 2 opposing forces... or better yet, a mutual destruction.

that image is pretty much incoherent. meritocracy is nice but ''meritocracy'' is a buzzword for bitchy white bois who are angry that their systemic bias is being taken away.

Firstly, that image was debunked already but I don't blame you for believing it because I did too before I did more research, it seems like something that could happen. There is nothing wrong with meritocracy, you'd be hard pushed to find a large group of people who think there is. This is all identity politics anyway and not really a useful discussion to have. Polite sage because I didn't contribute anything of merit.

It assumes merit is measurable.

>>7267 Objectively no, relative to other accomplishment it really is.

>>7262 >This is going to end up like that British rape gang thread isn't it? Almost certainly. That's why it was made after all. At least this one isn't 5 years late to the party. >We should create a politics/zaibatsu board to quarantine this stuff We tried that. It was a disaster. It just gave people an excuse to make countless threads like this. >>7266 On the contrary, you contributed the most interesting thing in the thread. The image was debunked. We're living in an age of "fake news" but personally I don't see this so much as "people are now lying to us" as "they can't keep their story straight." The news has always been lying to us, it's just that now they're not the ones in sole control of our information. It's less that we now need to be more judicious about what we believe and more that now we're more capable of obtaining information from other sources and checking the things we see. OP, you're being lied to. Somebody made that image hoping that it would line up with people's biases and they'd swallow it without question and share it with others. They got you hook, line and sinker. Be more careful in future, check everything that's politically charged, especially if it aligns with your own biases.

>>7266 Firstly, your comment has already been debunked.

>>7268 If an objective function of merit does not exist, the people who decide the subjective function of merit will naturally place themselves as more deserving of reward. Of course, those people also have a vested interest in continuing the idea that the distribution is due to merit. This is why the myth of meritocracy is so pernicious.

>>7261 it's impossible to quantify merit objectively, it always devolves into "stop liking what I don't like" luckily free markets can fix this also not directly related but the guy who coined the term "meritocracy" intended it to be satiric, which is pretty funny seeing how it backfired

Singapore?

>>7279 >What exactly is wrong with the idea of meritocracy? The problem is how do you measure merit? You need some metric to base rewards on and humans being humans will game the system to get the reward without necessarily contributing value. e.g. our entire fuarrrking banking industry.

>>7261 It's not implemented.

>>7266 >Firstly, that image was debunked already https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-all-female-responsible-bridge-collapse/ It looks to me that the construction company was milking the "diversity" and "women in stem" PR cow and then one of their projects catastrophically failed, anti-feminist retards on the internet went on a hate campaign. Hard to feel sorry for either side.

>>7262 >We should create a politics/zaibatsu board to quarantine this stuff away from /mega/ to be honest, I feel like threads like these ruin the general comfy vibe of the board and just incite division between lainons who usually get along well. I made one on 8ch a while ago. It's called /erispol/ The idea is to have political discussion wile keeping it rational and friendly. I mod it, so please don't flood or spam. :)

>>7266 The image is misleading, but it holds some truth. The design for the bridge is soykaf and it was unfinished. For *some* reason people went through with it. Why?

>>7301 >The problem is how do you measure merit? Really? So fuarrrking predictable. You guys always revert back to relativism when you're loosing the discussion. Are you sincerely going to imply that average nail salon is doing more on merit scale than an average hospital?

>>7279 >luckily free markets can fix this Not alone. If the only goal is money then the game becomes, take as much as you can and give as little back as possible. The end state of this system with no other inputs or constraints is just straight up theft and survival of the strongest. >>7306 >The image is misleading, but it holds some truth. The design for the bridge is soykaf and it was unfinished. For *some* reason people went through with it. Why? I don't think it holds any truth. Just because the construction company put photos of female monkeys in hardhats on their marketing materials to score diversity-points, doesn't mean anything about how projects are actually run. More likely the project was actually run by intelligent white/asian men and the bridge collapsed because construction was outsourced to the lowest bidder and cutting corners was the only way to make financial ends meet.

>>7308 >Are you sincerely going to imply that average nail salon is doing more on merit scale than an average hospital? You answered a difficult question by inventing the simplest strawman you could think of. Try harder. or better yet go away

>>7308 >You guys always revert back to relativism when you're loosing the discussion. It's the opposite of relativism actually. Merit is not a scale not a measure. You still need something to measure. What is that thing you measure? >Are you sincerely going to imply that average nail salon is doing more on merit scale than an average hospital? So you answer is merit means saving lives? In that case everyone will be a doctor, a fireman and a thug who light people on fire to create work for the doctors and firemen. Good job, anon.

>>7313 >I don't think it holds any truth. Just because the construction company put photos of female monkeys in hardhats on their marketing materials to score diversity-points, doesn't mean anything about how projects are actually run. More likely the project was actually run by intelligent white/asian men and the bridge collapsed because construction was outsourced to the lowest bidder and cutting corners was the only way to make financial ends meet. We're both running on conjecture, but the architect is a female. Not that it matters to me. But it is. The design is bad and the construction is incomplete. This is also fact.

>>7314 Yea, because relativism is reel fuarrrking hard. Oh look at me, I am an average joe that is asked to put a line in the sand between good and bad, THAT IS TOO MUCH PRESSUREn HOW CAN WE EVEN KNOW ? reel tough, relativists are nothing but pansies trying to deflect to discussions about where the line is because they know that if we put the ultimate line that then we will have moral right to be judge the jurry and executioners which gives them the willies.It is really hard to think of reality in which all moral questions are answered and human society is structure nicely by order of those universal moral laws , right? >>7315 >what izzz eeettt???!!?? I am not even entertaining that dumb deflection question anymore, I got bored by it. It is nothing but critical theory shtick which is outgrowth of marxist philosophy, only real tool of devaluing and destroying anything that stops the path of "progress". You don't like the idea of color red? "WELL WHAT IS THE COLOR RED? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ACTUALLY?" See? It is a peaka-boo for grown ups. You put a rhetorical question with a tone hinting that it has no meaning at all and voila, you baked a idea destroying virus. I don't blame you for sharing this virus, but please don't be another drone, I heard this argument a million times, please. >So you answer is merit means saving lives? Nooooo, merit is those teachers that teach classes filled with heterosexual children about gay sex instead of math science and programming. That is merit. >strawmaning my strawmaning with reductionism I didn't though it is possible, but you really outdone me. Thanks, I will use this tool in the future.

>>7322 >>So you answer is merit means saving lives? >Nooooo, merit is those teachers that teach classes filled with heterosexual children about gay sex instead of math science and programming. That is merit. When you are unable to actually answer a question (namely: what is merit?) that is completely and utterly vital to the ideology you are espousing, a reader is forced to conclude you have no real understanding of the world beyond image macros.

3. Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. 4. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. 5. Don't respond with aggression to perceived flames or trolls (or at all.) Keep it civil and don't derail the thread with off topic discussion.

>>7304 >Hard to feel sorry for either side. agreed

>>7323 But what do you mean by "what"? Ya know, I am really deep and insightful when I ask dumb queations lile this. My critical theory is on fleek my famalam

>>7328 >>7304 Hard to feel sorry for people that died in that accident, amirite xD

I remember reading the bottom right paper in the OP and it was a pretty reasonable and interesting analysis of gender in STEM, but all these dumb news blogs were making it out like she was arguing that math itself is intrinsically sexist, etc. The ability of people in power to ignore and misunderstand criticism of their systems of power is unsurprising but still impressive. There's nothing wrong at face value with the idea that only the most skilled people should be hired for a job. However, white men frequently use "It's just a meritocracy!" as a thought-terminating cliche to defend the disproportionate whiteness and/or maleness of their profession, ignoring that facts that (i) there are always conscious or subconscious biases that affect hiring practices, and (ii) there are myriad structural factors that prevent women or nonwhites from entering into those fields. The aforementioned paper is a great example of (ii), as it attempts to explain through gender theory why women feel alienated from STEM; a big part of the reason is that male socialization and female socialization (i.e. how boys and girls are raised in society) inculcate different values and different cognitive styles. In other words, women are raised in such a way that the culture and methods of inquiry in STEM seem hostile to them, while men are raised to fit into STEM perfectly (and at the same time, STEM is built around maleness). This is why many (more old-school) feminists view gender as a hierarchy, because the differences in male and female socialization help to preserve male power while giving women a subservient role.

>>7329 I am certain that you understand the question "what is merit?" Why are you unable to answer it?

>>7333 >I am certain that you understand the question "what is merit?" Why are you unable to answer it? There are 2 ways of solving this problem 1) give a concrete, objective metric for measuring "merit" 2) "merit" is whatever I decide it means It looks like >>7322 has already gone with option number 2. I don't think this thread is going to go anywhere unless someone with IQ higher than a chimp steps up to defend meritocracy.

>>7331 >I remember reading the bottom right paper in the OP and it was a pretty reasonable and interesting analysis of gender in STEM http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&context=tqr >Abstract >This study explored the gendered nature of STEM higher education institution through a feminist critical >discourse analysis of STEM course syllabi from a Midwest research university. I explored STEM syllabi to >understand how linguistic features such as stance and interdiscursivity are used in the syllabus and how >language and discourses used in the syllabus replicate the masculine nature of STEM education. Findings >suggest that the discourses identified in the syllabi reinforce traditional STEM academic roles, and that power >and gender in the STEM syllabi are revealed through exploration of the themes of knowledge, learning, and >the teaching and learning environment created by the language used in the syllabus. These findings inform and >extend understanding of the STEM syllabus and the STEM higher education institution and lead to >recommendations about how to make the STEM syllabus more inclusive for women. >>7331 >but all these dumb news blogs were making it out like she was arguing that math itself is intrinsically sexist, etc. I don't think the "dumb news blogs" are particularly wrong. >Through a poststructuralist lens, it is possible to make a comparison between a >modernist view of knowledge as based on notions of absolute truth and a single reality, which >is masculine, and the social construction of knowledge, where knowledge is unstable and >informed by context (Hesse-Biber, 2014). >This suggests that there is an opportunity for >STEM courses to reduce the perception of courses as difficult and unfriendly through language >use in the syllabi, and also as a guide for how to use less competitive teaching methods and >grading profiles that could improve the experience of female students. She is trying to argue that STEM courses are structured in a way that is deliberately hostile to women but it's a thin veneer. That's just the nature of hard sciences. 2+2 is either 4 or it's not. There is no room for reinterpreting the context to elicit a different answer through the social construct of knowledge. 2+2 is fuarrrking 4. Either your bridge stays up or it collapses. The end.

>>7333 Because you are in no position to ask questions. Because I am not obliged to answer them. Because you will keep asking questions until I can't answer them anymore, you going "hah, I win" and thinking you are victorious. Asking a rhetorical question with hints of answer with tone isn't hard. You trying to deconstruct the notion that merit exists with your questioning of it means nothing but your lack of morality and ethics.

>>7333 I will deconstruct the notion of questions in of themselves, by asking you back: "What is a question?" "Do all questions need an answer?" See? DECONSTRUCTED Damn, critical theory saved my ass once again.

>>7338 If you are fundamentally uninterested in defending your own beliefs, why post about at all? You aren't convincing anyone if you crumple under the slightest bit of inquiry.

>>7340 Because I am not defending to an oposing position, but I am defending against a tool of deconstruction used by marxist philosophy. Critical theory isn't saying anything of value, but only destroying what it doesn't like. It would be literally responding to a troll if I give it any reasonable response.

>>7344 Asking leading questions is how the Socratic method works. What makes the question "what is merit?" critical theory?

>>7338 >Because you will keep asking questions until I can't answer them anymore, you going "hah, I win" and thinking you are victorious. As long as the questions are relevant, that is a valid strategy. >What exactly is wrong with the idea of meritocracy? <what is merit? >*crickets* <that's what's wrong with meritocracy

>>7347 >as long as questions are relevant >answering a question with a question is relevant >using critical theory to deconstruct the existance of merit >neurosuggesting that these sort of tactics shouldnt be dismissed like they were coming from a troll

>>7346 Because you can look up definitions of word "merit" and "critical theory", you dont have to act dumb by asking questions and trapping people into answering incorrectly or making them play this little "lets deconstruct the notion of existance of idea" game.

>>7356 Is the dictionary definition of merit a sufficient measure to establish a meritocracy? I'm not playing dumb, I'm asking you to justify the statements you are making because I have no access to your reasoning. There is no incorrect answer to the question of why you believe what you believe.

>>7358 Mind you, I will not answer any of your questions pertaining me to elaborate on what "merir" means and how we can "measure it". I explain why already, but you think that your master tactic still holds. Yes, there is a "wrong" answer to your question and it is basically any and every question. Meritocracy is a way to go in future, and whether you like it or not capitalism rewards merit much more than socialism ever failed at trying to do so. I will let you get angry now knowing that your little critical theory shtick has lost its power because in reality, it only ever had power over those that didn't trust in their ideas from the get go.

>>7359 Too drunk, sorry for mistakes in errkr of grammar

>>7359 Do you expect anyone to believe a hypothesis presented without evidence? You seem to think the evidence is obvious, that it exists in abundance. If so, why do you have trouble naming it?

>>7331 >there are myriad structural factors that prevent women or nonwhites from entering into those fields. [citation needed]

>>7337 >She is trying to argue that STEM courses are structured in a way that is deliberately hostile to women but it's a thin veneer. That's just the nature of hard sciences. 2+2 is either 4 or it's not. There is no room for reinterpreting the context to elicit a different answer through the social construct of knowledge. 2+2 is fuarrrking 4. Either your bridge stays up or it collapses. The end. Good post. Gender studies and the like should be kept the fuarrrk away from hard science. Science is all about evidence, what *is*, the empirical. Gender studies is far from a science, and more akin to a political tool than a legitimate field of study.

>>7361 I have no trouble naming it, you have trouble accepting it.

>>7361 Why do you think questions need to be answered? Especially your questions

>>7369 >I have no trouble naming it >Mind you, I will not answer any of your questions pertaining me to elaborate on what "merir" means and how we can "measure it" You do have trouble naming it. The reason you've provided for not elaborating on your own beliefs is that I interrogate them. Why do you fear giving evidence for your beliefs? >>7370 That is how conversation functions.

>>7376 Why do you think I have a trouble naming it?

>>7376 Why do you think that's how a conversation functions? There have been very many conversations where no questions were posed to opposite side.

>>7382 Do you say why do I think you have a trouble naming it for some special reason? >>7383 Why not?

>>7384 Do you think that this little scharade can go on for too long before either one of us gets bored?

>>7385 >>7384 Welp, seems like I won

It usually ends up being a white male and asian male (japanese and chinese mostly) end game if you leave meritocracy do its work. That is racist, we can't have that.

>>7382 I provided context where you refuse to name it. >>7383 This is a purposefully disingenuous interpretation of "conversation." Clearly a conversation is not solely characterized by the presence of questions, but the social contract of a conversation is such that answering questions is expected, particularly in a debate. I hope this post serves as an example of how you answer questions instead of dodging them.

>>7263 > it doesn't mean that there are plenty of smart blacks and stupid yellows. It precisely means the black are inferior to us anon. >only that of of their ancestors Don't you know about races? They are more or less the same people as the ancestors >systemic bias What are you, a communist? >>7313 >More likely the project was actually run by intelligent white/asian men Do you really think (((they))) are letting us any job? It collapsed because it has been done by nigg**s >>7331 >myriad structural factors that prevent women or nonwhites from entering into those fields. Meaning they are actually stupid?

>>7392 Conversations don't exist as to have one person asking questions and other answering them. This is not a trial or a courtroom. Conversations work both ways questioning, and some of them don't even involve questions at all.

>>7392 Refusing to name it =\= unable to.

Broadly speaking, I think that every form of representative government is in some sense a meritocracy. Those who are best suited to the selective pressures will rule, and those that aren't won't. To get meta-political with this, I think the key to designing a good representative government is to choose those selective pressures so that the "fittest" rulers (those selected for by the political gauntlet) will also be the most benevolent. This, in my view, is the essence of meritocracy. There is a problem with democracy as we know it: ability to win elections is not well correlated with ability to effectively rule. We might as well choose the tallest person in the country to be president (or the person who happens to be the first born son of the last president). >>7331 >In other words, women are raised in such a way that the culture and methods of inquiry in STEM seem hostile to them This seems to be the crux of the issue. I'm in an awkward position because I value the culture of interpersonal challenge that occurs in this kind of work, but I don't think people should feel attacked by it. The obvious magic-wand solution is "teach woman to think more like men so they're better suited to the work" but that isn't an answer anybody wants to hear. Even so, that's easier said than done. It's not like you can expect your average aspiring engineer to feel comfortable tinkering around with her basic learned threat models and social adaptations to get into a work culture that an average man would be able to fit right into with little more than a bachelor's degree. On the other hand it isn't exactly fair to expect that same work culture to change away from something that's working out just fine in most other respects just to absorb new members who have a psychological profile that's evidently not well suited to the task at hand. I guess the lesson to be learned here is that "meritocracy" in this form is self-reinforcing. Also, and this isn't related to the main point directly, too many people confuse descriptive arguments with prescriptive ones. OP's image is a good example, so I'm going to pick on "the right" a bit here. It's one thing to say "woman are disadvantaged in becoming engineers because of their socialization". That's a fairly benign statement. It may be true, may not be. But as soon as you make that claim everyone on the right seems to go into fuarrrking defcon 5 defense mode waiting for a strawman to kick down the door shouting "so we're going to start mandatory quotas where we give all the engineering jobs to crackheads and that dumb bitch you went to high school with!"

>>7393 >It precisely means the black are inferior to us anon. There is no "us", I don't know what group you identify as a part of, but I could easily claim to be part of another group with higher average intelligence and/or success. But average intelligence in some arbitrary group of persons doesn't matter anyway. It makes sense to judge individuals, it doesn't make sense to discriminate against a whole group when a sizeable part of it is "better" (according to whatever metric) than the average Joey of your own group. I figure you're flaming, but there are people arguing this seriously and the proper counter arguments need to be out there.

>>7393 Oh and >Don't you know about races? No, I don't. Nobody ever manage to explain this concept to me in a coherent manner.

meritocracy is a pretty great idea. "meritocracy", aka trying to atomize all admissions/hiring decisions without taking into account factors of someone's background, is pretty garbage because it tends to cement the existing social order. People with more social capital(aka privelege) tend to get more educated/skilled, because they tend to go to better schools, hang around their similarly priveleged peers, and have more support from their parents(that last one is *HUGE*). That is why it's important to try and raise up people who have less social capital. Statistically it's most important to get the first generation into college/career, the next generations tend to catch up organically. So diversity quotas, or affirmative action or whatever, is important from a social engineering perspective, to produce real meritocracy, which is unfortunately lacking in modern capitalism. >>7464 b-b-b-but if you cut off genetic differences at some arbitrary number you get stuff that sorta kinda matches my preconceived social notions of race!

>>7397 You are still missing the point. Meritocracy means rewarding talent and accomplishment. You still need a way to judge what level of talent and accomplishment deserves what level of reward. I think that's what people mean when they ask "what is merit?". One way meritocracy falls down is people will optimize their work to hit the requirements to get the reward without necessarily producing any value. See Indian snake hunters for example. India pays people to hunt snakes. You kill more snakes, you make more money; straight up meritocracy. What happens? The snake hunters breed their own snakes and now there are more snakes crawling around than before. Our education system is another example. Kids are rewarded for passing exams. What happens? Schools an universities churn out kids who are great at remembering unless soykaf and taking exams but don't know anything about the real world. To be fair though, looking at this thread I think OP was only trying to have a cry over "diversity", not to have a meaningful discussion about meritocracy.

>>7546 But affirmative action and diversity quotas are ineffective, because people are already grown up by the time they get to experience those things. You need to get things started the day they are born, not at age 12 or 16 or 24. Using affirmative action in universities will make things worse, because they have less pressure to put effort into studying, and this results in lower quality graduates. This in turn results in discrimination at work by customers, because by the very nature of the way they were educated, there's a high chance they're less competent than whites and Asians. If black people get to important positions (like doctors) mostly because of affirmative action (which forgives academic incompetence to produce the end result of officially highly educated minorities), they'll gain the stereotype of being soykaf at their job, since in practice they aren't really highly educated at all - they only have a certification. There's no pressure to work hard since minorities get the rewards of a white hard student while they're studying less. I don't have solutions that aren't draconian either. You'll only achieve Equality (TM) by forcibly putting black newborns into white families, and/or forcing customers to choose services by minorities.

>>7400 >On the other hand it isn't exactly fair to expect that same work culture to change away from something that's working out just fine in most other respects just to absorb new members who have a psychological profile that's evidently not well suited to the task at hand. This is where I get lost in such discussions. The inclusion of minorities seems to be a goal in and of itself and somehow trumps the original goals of the institution in question. Science is about exploring the universe. If white/asian males are best suited to do that then let them get on with it. Redefining science to be more inclusive to those who are basically not good at it is a net loss for humanity.

>>7548 >But affirmative action and diversity quotas are ineffective, because people are already grown up by the time they get to experience those things. I really don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Obviously social change has to be at all levels but affirmative action is one way of getting the foot in the door. >because they have less pressure to put effort into studying This is wrong on two fronts. For very selective schools, there is an insane amount of pressure on everyone. For less selective schools, putting more or less pressure on different groups doesn't mean much because only self-motivated people will get anything out of their college education anyway. >If black people get to important positions (like doctors) mostly because of affirmative action I don't think that is or ever will be the case. There's a difference between being less competitive and letting people in with lower requirements. >>7550 >Science is about exploring the universe. If white/asian males are best suited to do that then let them get on with it. I don't see why you can't do that while also trying to get people of less privelege a place in that work

>>7559 >I don't see why you can't do that while also trying to get people of less privelege a place in that work Privilege has nothing to do with the post you're responding to (did you even read it?)

google "MCM fact check". you're a dumbass OP. the image is also quoting all those feminists out of context.

>>7550 > If white/asian males are best suited to do that It is incredibly unlikely that white and Asian men are somehow biologically suited to perform science given how simple doing science is. As such, cultural and social factors can be the only conclusion for why there is a preponderance of white and Asian men in science. Science, at it's very definition, benefits from a wide variety of different samples from a distribution. That doesn't mean all attempts at diversity end up helping, but the cause itself is completely compatible with science.

>>7563 >It is incredibly unlikely that white and Asian men are somehow biologically suited to perform science given how simple doing science is. IQ >As such, cultural and social factors can be the only conclusion for why there is a preponderance of white and Asian men in science. It's the only conclusion if you want to ignore reality and pretend everyone is born equal because political correctness. >Science, at it's very definition, benefits from a wide variety of different samples from a distribution. That's like saying pigs are tastier when they're fat so farmers should be 300lb. >the cause itself is completely compatible with science. Yes but the point of >>7337 is that science itself should be changed to accommodate minorities.

>>7564 >IQ Is not at all suitable as a measurement of who's good at science. It was made for determining which children will need special help in school, hence why age plays such a massive part in the calculation. It's really not good for anything else. >It's the only conclusion if you want to ignore reality He's not the one ignoring a preponderance of scientific evidence. As has been shown repeatedly any differences are easily within a standard deviation. As such, the correct choice is to ignore it as an signifier in favour of the hundreds of much better signifiers we have. >That's like saying pigs are tastier when they're fat so farmers should be 300lb. No. It's like saying that we need to try a wide variety of tastes to determine which is best, so we should take a little from farmers all over the place. This is actually a really important thing for us to be doing, especially with physics being in the state it is atm, as it ensures our range of competing theories are as wide as possible. >Yes but the point of >>7337 is that science itself should be changed to accommodate minorities. That's not what that says. At all. There's stuff in there about the way that we teach science should be changed to make it easier for some students but that's it. You probably should have read it first. More than that this idea that "that's just the nature of hard sciences. 2+2 is either 4 or it's not." is incredibly naive. That might be how it was when you were learning Newtonian physics in school. That's not how actual science, i.e. research, is. To quote Einstein, "The greatest scientists are artists as well." Experimental falsification of theories is a fairly mechanical process without much creativity. Creating new theories is not and science as a epistemology is not. These "postmodern" (not actually what postmodern means btw) ideas that maybe our view of the world is not the only correct one made their way into science where they've been widely accepted causing the death of scientific realism and the rise of model based paradigms about 100 years ago. It's over. The people who were willing to accept that they could possibly be wrong won. This whole thing is just running on ignorance. Ignorance of how statistics can be applied to individuals. Ignorance of what the people who want scientific reform are actually talking about. Ignorance of the fact that science as "I have proved that this is true" is outdated by nearly a hundred years and no longer taken seriously by anyone in the field in favour of empirical falsification approaches. But fuarrrk that right? Who needs evidence, logic, expertise or even basic fact checking? Let's just search for whatever we can to justify a conclusion reached before we even started looking at the evidence. "Black people are bad at science hurf durf" meanwhile one of the most successful physics professors in the world is black. It's hogwash and there was never any evidence beyond wishful thinking behind it in the first place.

>>7565 >Is not at all suitable as a measurement of who's good at science. The accusation was that biology has no bearing. Clearly that's wrong since some people are naturally more intelligent than others regardless of "cultural and social factors". >As has been shown repeatedly any differences are easily within a standard deviation. It is not clear what "has been shown" and if evidence supporting your point is so abundant then why not share it? >No. It's like saying that we need to try a wide variety of tastes to determine which is best, so we should take a little from farmers all over the place. The point was, how does the characteristic of the farmer affect the pig? >More than that this idea that "that's just the nature of hard sciences. 2+2 is either 4 or it's not." is incredibly naive. >... >... >... >science as "I have proved that this is true" is outdated by nearly a hundred years and no longer taken seriously by anyone in the field in favour of empirical falsification approaches The post you are responding to is obviously talking about the binary nature of truth, not the process of getting there. Way to chew on a bone though. Good work boy. >Who needs evidence, logic, expertise or even basic fact checking? The implication being that posts preceding yours have factual mistakes yet you haven't actually done any fact checking yourself. Don't lie. If what you mean is everyone-who-doesn't-agree-with-me-is-wrong then get off your high horse and say exactly that. >"Black people are bad at science hurf durf" meanwhile one of the most successful physics professors in the world is black. What point are you trying to make? When I was a kid I had a rabbit that could swim. Doesn't falsify the statement that rabbits are soykaf at swimming though. See also availability heuristic, you will reach a different conclusion if you tried to name 10 black scientists, not just 1.

>>7566 >It is not clear what "has been shown" and if evidence supporting your point is so abundant then why not share it? I'm not going to bother finding a bunch of studies that tell people what they already know. It's just thoroughly not worth my time. I will say, the next time you see one of those race and IQ studies go and check the stats. They'll be within a standard deviation. >The point was, how does the characteristic of the farmer affect the pig? How do the characteristics of a scientist affect the theories they come up with? You really think that question answer or did you just get lost in the metaphor and forget what we're actually talking about? History is replete with examples of scientists who couldn't get past their own ill conceived theories. Einstein being locked into a view of an eternal universe is a famous one. >The post you are responding to is obviously talking about the binary nature of truth, So am I. Notice the bit about scientific realism being dead and model based paradigms taking over. >The implication being that posts preceding yours have factual mistakes Yeah, they did. So did you. Cases in point: >Clearly that's wrong since some people are naturally more intelligent than others regardless of "cultural and social factors". No evidence anywhere to support this. It's not even possible to collect evidence on it because it's not practically falsifiable. You cannot pull the biological factors away from the cultural and social ones and say which is which. You're just making stuff up out of wishful thinking. >If what you mean is everyone-who-doesn't-agree-with-me-is-wrong then get off your high horse and say exactly that. It's not everyone who doesn't agree with me. It's just people trying to use IQ statistics to push their racism. It's bullsoykaf. It has no evidence, no logic, no expert support and requires that its adherents don't do basic fact checking. >What point are you trying to make? That you have no idea how to apply statistics to individuals, something you keep hammering home. >When I was a kid I had a rabbit that could swim. Doesn't falsify the statement that rabbits are soykaf at swimming though. Assuming your rabbit was a good swimmer then, yes, yes it does. Obviously it does exactly that. Not to mention our "rabbit" here is one of best in the world. >you will reach a different conclusion if you tried to name 10 black scientists, not just 1. Wait what? Since when was this about how many there were? This is about the fact that one of the very best in the world is black. That, clearly, any interpretation of statistics on the subject that tells me "we should never have given this guy a chance to become a scientist because he probably wouldn't be very good at it" is horrendously flawed and unsuitable for obtaining optimal results in practice. More than that, it hasn't had any serious scientific backing since the nazis lost. The belief exists and is pushed for one reason only wishful thinking caused by racism.

>>7567 >I'm not going to bother finding a bunch of studies that tell people what they already know. It's just thoroughly not worth my time. I will say, the next time you see one of those race and IQ studies go and check the stats. Pretending you have evidence and everyone agrees with you *as a fuarrrking starting point* is not really arguing in good faith. >How do the characteristics of a scientist affect the theories they come up with? You really think that question answer Yes. Because there is only a narrow set of farmer characteristics that will affect the quality of the pigs but that detail has been lost in this discussion about diversity. >we need more farmers who are different in superficial ways that don't affect the quality of the livestock while ignoring the characteristics that do matter >No evidence anywhere to support this. It's not even possible to collect evidence on it because it's not practically falsifiable. You cannot pull the biological factors away from the cultural and social ones and say which is which. You're just making stuff up out of wishful thinking. Just to be clear. You are saying all humans are born equally intelligent and only cultural and social factors determine who becomes and engineer and who becomes a toilet cleaner? >It's just people trying to use IQ statistics to push their racism. It's bullsoykaf. It has no evidence, no logic, no expert support and requires that its adherents don't do basic fact checking. Again accusing people you don't agree with of having no evidence without supplying any evidence yourself. >Assuming your rabbit was a good swimmer then, yes, yes it does. Obviously it does exactly that. Not to mention our "rabbit" here is one of best in the world. I think your interpretation of the (ambiguous)statement is too biased by the context and discussion. A reasonable person would interpret "Xs are bad at Y" as "MOST Xs are bad at Y" and not "ALL Xs are bad at Y". Your example of a single outlier falsifies the second statement not the first. >That, clearly, any interpretation of statistics on the subject that tells me "we should never have given this guy a chance to become a scientist because he probably wouldn't be very good at it" is horrendously flawed Nobody said that. On the other hand saying "one of the best scientists in the world is black therefor we need to push for more black scientists at the expense of others" is equally flawed. >More than that, it hasn't had any serious scientific backing since the nazis lost. Are you saying that politics somehow affects scientific fact? That would explain a lot about the garbage you've posted.

>>7567 >Wait what? Since when was this about how many there were? The availability heuristic. When posed with an idea such as, blacks are bad at science, your brain immediately thought of a famous black scientist and stopped further processing (because our brains are evolutionary conditioned to be lazy). This introduced a bias in your evaluation of how good blacks are at science. If you forced yourself to think of more examples, this bias would even out and then eventually swing in the other direction as you run out of easy to remember names. sage because tangent I guess. The real problem was you substituted the original statement "blacks are bad at science" with "ALL blacks are bad at science" which was easier to reason about and falsify. This is also a cognitive bias (attribute substitution) caused by a bug in our evolutionary hardware and not your fault but it needs to be pointed out.

Why the fuarrrk are these lazy ass threads allowed to exist in the first place? Your question isn't wrong and i understand how you can reach adulthood without understanding the defects in meritocracy (or how it's used in our society), BUT, you put in as much effort as a search engine fuarrrking search, why the fuarrrk didn't you click on the first 3 links you found, read about it, and then created a post talking about what you don't understand or agree with on the surface level? This is an effortless thread that requires someone willing to give you the basics and feed you info down your fuarrrking throat. If this soykaf is unacceptable in computer science, why the fuarrrk is it acceptable in economics and politics? Would a thread asking "why is rust good?" or "how do i learn java?" be tolerable? Then why the fuarrrk is this piece of soykaf allowed?

>>7568 >Pretending you have evidence and everyone agrees with you *as a fuarrrking starting point* is not really arguing in good faith. Why ever not? Here's the thing, everyone does agree with me. It is overwhelming the current zeitgeist that we're all born equal and racism is soykafty. If you want to challenge that it's on you to provide evidence. This is how burden of proof works these days as it turns out the old ideas that there was some sort of default stance could contradict themselves when you looked at logically equivalent propositions. Though even with most of those methods it'd be on you to show there was a difference at all first. Let alone me on me to show it was within a standard deviation. But seriously, let's skip that bit. We've all seen the same studies on this anyway, there's a gap, it's significantly less than a standard deviation small. >Just to be clear. You are saying all humans are born equally intelligent and only cultural and social factors determine who becomes and engineer and who becomes a toilet cleaner? No. I'm saying that you can't reasonably collect evidence on if a phenomena is cultural or biological in origin. For me to make a claim such as the one you've assumed would be equally bad as your previous claim for all the same reasons. >Again accusing people you don't agree with of having no evidence without supplying any evidence yourself. "What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." >A reasonable person would interpret "Xs are bad at Y" as "MOST Xs are bad at Y" and not "ALL Xs are bad at Y". No. In context sure, we can get that you probably mean most and not all but then you go on to treat the results of this as if it were all (i.e. you imply we should care). In reality we have a difference that's less than a standard deviation on a subject for which we have far better signifiers. >Nobody said that. On the other hand saying "one of the best scientists in the world is black therefor we need to push for more black scientists at the expense of others" is equally flawed. Nobody said that either. This whole thing started as a result of a paper that suggested different teaching methods. Which was then slaughtered to claim that they somehow want to change science, or push for more black scientists at the expense of others. Let's refocus on the relevant points of contention here. If you looked at the race and IQ statistics and came away with the feeling that Whites and Asians are meaningfully smarter it's because you can't into statistics. If you looked at IQ and thought "This'll mean they're good at science" then you don't understand IQ or science. >Are you saying that politics somehow affects scientific fact? No. Read the next sentence. I'm commenting on why this belief is still going half a century later despite being utter bullsoykaf. That said, yes. Yes, it does affect scientific fact. Go back 300 years and there's defo a god was "scientific fact." As well regarded and accepted as any fact these days and just as true in the minds of people then as any of our truths are in ours now. We're no different really. We may have corrected those mistakes but we're still fallible. For a more modern example, Asia and the West had different models of which parts of the tongue tasted which things. These models were clearly inspired by the way people in the differing regions would think about taste. This is something that's embraced these days, more models is always nice, and it's what I mean by the death of scientific realism. >When posed with an idea such as, blacks are bad at science, your brain immediately thought of a famous black scientist and stopped further processing (because our brains are evolutionary conditioned to be lazy) It has nothing to do with being lazy. I'm done there. One counter example at the top of the field is all that's needed to make the point. Individual intellectual merit far outweighs race based statistics. That's what significantly less than a standard deviation means. >This introduced a bias in your evaluation of how good blacks are at science. If you forced yourself to think of more examples, this bias would even out and then eventually swing in the other direction as you run out of easy to remember names. Now this is lazy. You don't try to count up examples in your head. That's exactly how bias (I've called it wishful thinking) works. You need to go and do rigorous study that doesn't leave much room for bias. Oh wait we did and it was within an SD. >The real problem was you substituted the original statement "blacks are bad at science" with "ALL blacks are bad at science" No. That was you. You went from "there's a small statistical difference that's almost completely smothered by randomness on the scale of individuals" to "blacks are bad at science." This leap is not supported by the evidence. >>7570 >why the fuarrrk didn't you click on the first 3 links you found, read about it This is one of the threads that was made the same day as all the other vaguely right agenda pushing threads, almost certainly by the same person. I don't imagine good research was the first thing on their mind. >why the fuarrrk didn't you click on the first 3 links you found, read about it Tolerance and bias. There has to be some amount of tolerating this sort of stuff or else we end up in an echo chamber with the subjects dictated by the biases of the mods. If you're not like me and enjoy whiling away the hour arguing the toss, I'd use the hide this thread thing. Sage in light of that.

>>7571 >Tolerance and bias. I highly disagree with that. The problem is not to agree with meritocracy, the problem is being dumb as fuarrrk about it. Why is our bar for political discussion so low? Imagine someone goes in /sec/ and creates a thread saying "How do i become a hacker"? It wouldn't work, it's too broad a question, and if you asked it without giving enough of a soykaf about the subject to do your own basic research first, this thread won't go anywhere, because nobody can answer these things for you if you don't care enough about it to read a blog post. My point isn't to kill right wing discourse, you're falling for their victimism and thinking it's legit, it's not. Weak, baity threads result in weak replies, it's very easy to create weak threads and pollute the whole imageboard. If OP was legit, researched about meritocracy and it's criticism, and then created a thread about the subject, it wouldn't be a problem, it would be a high level discourse where you can't answer with a fuarrrking pepe funny twitter meme. Saging won't solve this soykaf, they can create another thread with the same dumb subject and a lot of people will try to refute people who aren't willing to discuss anything. This is a problem for the mods, they have to expect the same level of quality from political discourse as we expect from computer science.

>>7564 >IQ IQ is not highly correlated with ability to do science except at the extrema, nor does measuring it filter out cultural and social effects. There is a heavy irony in how anti-science you are. You race to choose a measure that simply does not do what you are claiming it to do. You refuse to consider other viewpoints. You respond to a specific mathematical formulation of why diversity is a boon with a metaphor that shows you don't understand it. All of this is just a big show for you to try and justify hating people that are different than you. It's an entirely pathetic display to people who actually engage with and perform science.

>>7572 >My point isn't to kill right wing discourse Of course not. This isn't about left or right. Both have been just as bad for it. >they can create another thread with the same dumb subject That's something they can do whatever the weather. >This is a problem for the mods You're right and it's something that's going to come up at the meeting in about 2 weeks or so. Though note that if they get locked or deleted there's going to be threads on /q/ whining about it. There are no perfect solutions here and this culture of going out and shilIing for your cause (which just so happens to align with the cause of some major interests) online is growing. Just getting the mods to delete it all isn't a great solution because even if they do their level best to be fair bias will get involved. At the moment the best solution appears to be hiding threads yourself, though maybe someone will come up with something clever at the meeting. At the least we should raise the bar on stuff like this. Threads that are as low effort as this one should probably get locked rather than warned. If they want to shiIl at least make them work for it.

>>7571 >Let's refocus on the relevant points of contention here. If you looked at the race and IQ statistics and came away with the feeling that Whites and Asians are meaningfully smarter it's because you can't into statistics. If you looked at IQ and thought "This'll mean they're good at science" then you don't understand IQ or science. That has never been a "point of contention" in this thread (show me a post id that isn't yours). Clearly mentioning "IQ" has triggered your brain into spewing out cached responses to some argument you're been having somewhere else. If you want to start again, here it is You said >>7563 >It is incredibly unlikely that white and Asian men are somehow biologically suited to perform science given how simple doing science is. Why do you think that? White and asian men dominate science. It seems to me there must be some kind of biological brain configuration that is more common in men and especially white and asian men, that makes them good at abstract problem solving and logical reasoning. No other explanation required. Occam's razor. What's your theory? If you're going to say something about "privilege" then I have another question. I understand the "white man privilege". Americans and Europeans are white societies. White men run government own lots of money and land etc. But in what way do you imagine asians are "privileged"? Go back 100-200 years ago and they were basically slaves. Chinamen were building our railroads for $1 a month and Indians were sucking British cock in their tea plantations. So what "privilege" are you talking about? Again, it seems to me that asians rode the information age wave to the top of society while blacks stayed pretty much where they were because genetics. That's not racism; life just isn't fair.

>>7581 >No other explanation required. Occam's razor. Further evidence of your anti-science stance: giving a single explanation and invoking a heuristic that requires you to demonstrate that your explanation requires fewer falsifiable assumptions. The assumption that IQ plays a meaningful role in ability to perform science at a high confidence level has not been established in any meaningful capacity, whereas the suppression of other people's ability to perform tasks regardless of merit is well documented (see the effect of blind tests in orchestras, the effect of stereotypical white vs black names on resumes, etc.) Your understanding of science is sad and your attempt to hide hatred in the garb of science pathetic.

>>7582 >giving a single explanation and invoking a heuristic that requires you to demonstrate that your explanation requires fewer falsifiable assumptions. I did clearly say it was a theory. If you don't like it, share your own. >The assumption that IQ plays a meaningful role I didn't say IQ this time, stop riding that pony already. >What's your theory? I'm waiting.

>>7582 >Your understanding of science is sad and your attempt to hide hatred in the garb of science pathetic. Where is the hatred? Saying white people tend to be smarter than black people is not hatred. Its like saying women are better at breast feeding than men. If you see any posts expressing hatred or contempt then feel free to report them but make sure you're not just adding your own bias.

>>7583 >I did clearly say it was a theory. A completely meaningless defense in the context of science, used only by Creationists and their ilk. >I didn't say IQ this time, stop riding that pony already. True, I gave you too much credit by assuming you were proposing something falsifiable. Instead your guess, biological brain configurations, is completely unmeasurable. How even more absurd that you'd invoke Occam's Razor! >I'm waiting. I advance no hypothesis in the face of no measurements.

>>7581 >That has never been a "point of contention" in this thread Sure it was. You said "IQ" in response to "It is incredibly unlikely that white and Asian men are somehow biologically suited to perform science" Am I supposed to take from this that you don't think that IQ is related to scientific ability? Or that you don't think White and Asians are meaningfully better at it? Bullsoykaf. Utter bullsoykaf. >You said Wasn't me. Would be massively hypocritical considering that my next point is one I've said before. >It seems to me there must be some kind of biological brain configuration You have no evidence for that at all. You cannot say what is biological and what is cultural. >Occam's razor. Is not a good way of getting to the truth. At all. It's a joke. Turns out the simplest explanation isn't always the correct one, fancy that. >But in what way do you imagine asians are "privileged" I generally don't say "privileged" it's a very vague term, but an example would be better education. There are plenty of parts of Asia that don't have good education (such as rural China) and so we don't see large amounts of scientists coming from these areas. >Go back 100-200 years ago and they were basically slaves Who wasn't? >Again, it seems to me that asians rode the information age wave to the top of society while blacks stayed pretty much where they were because genetics. That's not racism; life just isn't fair. See this is why Occam's razor is utter soykaf. You take tiny little scraps of evidence and then jump straight to a conclusion. It's not even a valid concept in hard sciences like physics and you're trying to apply it to sociology? Here's another explanation, colonialism was handled very differently in these areas. Japan was never colonised. India threw off colonialism in a way that united the nation. Most of Africa and the middle east was just "given back" and when it was given back the Europeans were careful to ensure that the regions would be unstable and at the mercy of foreign powers. Of course that's another massive oversimplification that will fail under the full weight of evidence but it still stands up a whole lot better than yours. It's just wishful thinking. The only way you can reach these conclusions is if you go into researching with the intention of reaching them and just stop and shout "Occam's razor" when you've found a single thing that supports your view. If you do what actual scientists do and deliberately search for evidence that goes against your theories or even just keep researching it all starts to fall apart. For instance in the 12-16th centuries Timbuktu was one of the greatest centres of learning in the world boasting the biggest library since Alexandria. >>7582 >your attempt to hide hatred in the garb of science pathetic. This is what gets me. Despite our friends assumptions I'm not one to harp on about privilege, left vs right means jacksoykaf to me, but I like my science and the idea that there's any sort of scientific merit to racist ideas is utter bollocks. >>7583 >I did clearly say it was a theory. You're still expected to defend it. >If you don't like it, share your own That's not how this works. If you want to push a theory you have to defend it. People don't have to give their own theory in order to tear yours down. >I didn't say IQ this time, stop riding that pony already. Errr, no? You said it. You gave it as a one word answer to the main point of contention here. Just because you want to backpedal and move the goalposts (That wasn't a point of contention my arse) doesn't mean we're going to let it pass unnoticed.

>>7584 >Where is the hatred? Saying white people tend to be smarter than black people is not hatred. Its like saying women are better at breast feeding than men. You compare a normal curve shifted slightly to the left compared to another normal curve with a truism. It is not reason that drives this belief, this much is certain.

>>7585 I understand how much you WANT me to be wrong. I get it you want me to choke to death on a genderless rainbow colored dildo for not subscribing to your twisted brand of virtue. It's time to stop soykafting on everything and answer the question. If intelligence is meaningless as you put it, then why is science dominated by white/asian men?

>>7588 >I understand how much you WANT me to be wrong. I get it you want me to choke to death on a genderless rainbow colored dildo for not subscribing to your twisted brand of virtue This is your response? An accusation that I wish you death? Coward that you are, this is a game of politics to you, you have not the yearning for truth that underlies science and scientific men. > why is science dominated by white/asian men? You already have my response. I advance no hypothesis in the face of no data.

You niggas still asking dumb ass questions, and you other niggas still answering dumb ass questions as if they were being asked in good faith, c'monbruh

Something I miss about the old Lainchan is that obvious racebait was deleted.

>>7586 >See this is why Occam's razor is utter soykaf. You take tiny little scraps of evidence and then jump straight to a conclusion.· That's not what occams razor is. I mentioned it to remind you that even though adding more details to my explanation would make it more believable, that's not how logic works. >Errr, no? You said it. You gave it as a one word answer to the main point of contention here. Just because you want to backpedal and move the goalposts (That wasn't a point of contention my arse) doesn't mean we're going to let it pass unnoticed. That's not what moving the goal posts means. >Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. What actually happened was, I made a terse post. You filled in the ambiguities with stupidity. I clarified. You are crying because the elaboration is harder to attack. If you want a word for it, it's called bad faith. >That wasn't a point of contention my arse I invited you to share a post id with your first quote. If you can't find it that's because you made it up. >That's not how this works. If you want to push a theory you have to defend it. People don't have to give their own theory in order to tear yours down. How it works. We make a shared observation. I propose a model to explain it. You propose a better one. How it doesn't work. We make a shared observation. I propose a model to explain it. You go on a pc rage because my model contains illegal thoughts against your liberal morality. >You already have my response. I advance no hypothesis in the face of no data. Try harder.

>>7590 >ebonics Opinion discarded

>>7592 speaking of pre election lainchan, where did kalyx go? Haven't heard about his whiny bitch ass in a while.

>>7595 He's not welcome here since the son of a bitch wiped the board. Wherever he is, I hope he gets shot in the dick.

>>7596 even after that i remember he started soykaf all the time. After jp, don't think i've heard of him, even his floods on /q/ pretending that he isn't he have stopped

>>7592 Yeah, we're gonna talk about it at the meeting. There was a point about a year ago where a bunch of marginal stuff got deleted and there were lots of complaints. Since then stuff usually just gets warned like this thread was. We need to talk about the larger problem as well. ShilIs are in full force everywhere atm and just deleting it is gonna cause a host more problems as they whine about censorship. Still, one way or another we'll deal with it. >>7595 I haven't heard hide nor hair of him since .jp imploded. I think he's just moved on. >>7597 As much as he was the only member of .jp dumb enough to get caught (which was really fuarrrking dumb to be honest), given the volume of shilIing I doubt he was the only one.

>>7595 I miss him. Whether he understood or not, he was the trouble-trickster-problem that kept everyone trying to improve. Ever since he is gone, this place feels a bit more academic, but a lot more dead. I don't mean the amount of traffic either; I frequent arisu and lain both, and this spark of "dirty and dangerous" has moved to arisu. Also don't forget that kalyx is papa kalyx.

SHOT IN THE DICK WITH A soykaf ARROW And .jp! What a great idea that was! A board for back-stabbers, and holy soykaf, they all stabbed each other in the back, who saw that coming?

>>7600 He was nice when he was sane, which wasn't often. Can't say i miss him, but don't want any harm to come to him.

>>7599 You seriously think you can fix the site at this point, that you can make it comfy again?

>>7608 Yeah. There are problems but many of them are fairly superficial. It just requires getting people on the same page, which I hope to do at the meeting. There's been a lot of personal trouble recently, some my own, some Appleman's. He quit his job to be able to find more time for the site (don't worry, money's taken care of). The meeting/birthday is coming up soon and it seems a good point to turn things round. If you're around on the 20th hop on mumble or IRC, it's a birthday party as much as a meeting. If you're a coder there's a hackathon as well. Some of the problems we have aren't so easy. The big one is the political shilIing. Political shilIing on this sort of scale for a site this small is a fairly new thing. There's obviously a lot more can be done and I intend to see that it is but I can't promise you what'll happen then. Hopefully they'll just give up but who can say? Whatever happens I'm not prepared to watch small sites that don't take a side in this left vs right soykaf slowly die out. At the moment it's only the bigger small sites that're attracting attention but wherever we go they'll follow sooner or later. I do hope it doesn't spill over onto the tiny sites, there are some incredibly comfy places that just wouldn't do well with this soykaf. Ideas beyond "Just join my side!" are always welcome. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot more to be done besides. General quality control needs looking at but that's a solvable problem. There's a few technical problems and soykaf with the IRC as well but I don't want to talk about things ahead of time, lest you get the idea it's actually my decision. Most of the details will be decided during the meeting but whatever happens I intend to see we get this done.

Due to continues breach of rule(s) -mostly the ones I've already stated here >>7326, misleading information without any evidence to back it up, a very short and soykafty opening post, baiting people into arguments while making multiple posts (samefagging), this thread will be locked. As for some of the complaints, for example >>7570 >Why the fuarrrk are these lazy ass threads allowed to exist in the first place? >Would a thread asking "why is rust good?" or "how do i learn java?" be tolerable? Then why the fuarrrk is this piece of soykaf allowed? Some threads with awful opening posts such as this one, can still be saved by the replies, so instead of blatantly deleting/locking them, they are left for a certain period of time to be "saved". Unfortunately, most threads regarding political discourse end up being a huge clusterfuck and they usually get either locked or deleted. Keep in mind that this is a case-by-case basis and that if your thread/post is breaking the global rules and/or the board rules listed in the sticky, it will most likely get deleted. Criticism is welcomed on >>>/q/, if you want to specifically talk/complain about politics on the /r/ board, perhaps post in this thread >>>/q/3372 or make a new one instead.