Sorry if this sounds like a another "lol liberals" rant...

Sorry if this sounds like a another "lol liberals" rant, but really I can't get over how inane the liberal idea of "lets just have more of X race/sex/ethnic group in positions of authority" is. Like, doesn't that whole position rely on some basis the belief that only people of X group can really emphasize and work in the self interest of X group? Help me out here, because I can think of no other way you could justify such a position other then some kind of pseudo-fascism.

Other urls found in this thread:



that's just how institutions justify themselves nowadays.Capitalist institutions have outgrown the old factory model, beyond physical commodities, they are involved in the production of consensus and governance. Our current worldorder's precepts are merely a logical development of the meritocratic ideals of the French Revolution and enlightenment instrumental rationality. Institutions have merely become more proactive in the way they mold
their subjects. They have to prove they stand for a nebulous ideal of 'social change'. Liberals are unable to think of everything as a purely administrative problem.

"Of course we're an ethical company! Just look! Our CEO is a Black (note the uppercase) woman!"
t. modern corporations

"Who do we have to hire to make the most money?"
t. bourgeois liberals

Stop being so intimidated by the idea of progress, homophobe.


Whereas sargonoid "classical liberals" see the promise of complete meritocracy and individualism merely in full political equality and regardless of social circumstances, the "progressives" note the current society still has certain marks of bygone times, which is why they want to introduce measures that push towards balance between all sectors of population. Male to female ratio is roughly 50:50 while STEM fields are male-dominated? This might be a mark of more patriarchal era that requires social intervention pushing the ratio towards 50:50 in order to reflect the wider population. Same applies to race, religion, orientation and whatever else.
The endgame taken to the absurd logical conclusion would be a near-exact ratio of racial, gendered, etc representation everywhere. Such system appears to be truly "meritocratic", since from the identitarian perspective it appears to be a complete restart of social relation, except this time it is presupposed society has fully discarded all past prejudices and no individual could claim identity-based inferiority or superiority. No longer can you claim to have it better or worse due to your race or orientation, only isolated individual dependent on himself remains, liberal capitalism has fully wiped out the past.

capitalism is and always was an absurd people management system, nothing rational or 'meritocratic' about it. 'Success' means the machine has found a place for you.

yaaas fam

Well of all social systems we created in history it is surely the most meritocratic. The problem is meritocracy itself.

no matter how much we play around with it a meritocracy can only produce a monopoly (or an approximation of it in systems where a single winner is unlikely to rise). That is the end game of competition and there's nothing that can be done to prevent that.
Economic competition does not exist anymore, not in the classical sense at least. We are not even in the monopoly phase of capitalism now, we are past even that. We are now in the planned economy phase, where the winners of the competition phase use the resources accumulated in the monopoly phase to establish themselves as permanent rulers of the system through the fusion with public institutions.

Reminds me of this idiot i found on twitter. Its called pandering for more money.

Not a homopobe, were just criticising sjw's who want them in various positions purely on the basis of quotas and not skill.

rightists are subhuman

Ironically, it's neither liberals nor conservatives who want a meritocracy, but communists.

"The more non-white and gay corporations become, the more socialister the system is." - Karl Marx


I think it's more of a working backwards thing where they presume the system would be fair if the demographic distributions were equivalent per capita. As in "X results would be 'fair' and we aren't at fair so let's adjust until we're there" and just end up shoving more minorities into those positions to get the results you're "supposed" to get without ever questioning how we got there in the first place. These people never really question how we got to the point of "unfairness" in the first place, and at an even deeper level haven't considered why the fuck more of your own demo doing better is supposed to motivate you on an individual level.

I want all the straightfags on Reddit to stop LARPing as gay people just so they can pretend they aren't the ciswhite males they hate so much.

fact 100% of gays are just faking it to virtue signal, every 2 weeks or so, the purple haired tumblrblobs go home to their wives and have sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of reproduction. like they are NOT EVEN gay, 'gays' are purely mythological creatures made up by queer theory hucksters in the 90s, they don't actually exist.

I can't tell if shitposting or retarded.

back to reddit

What? That makes no sense. That's not what fascism actually is.

Fuck off you greasy cunt

The enduring conflation between left and liberal has done tremendous damage to the left.

Are you some kind of trap exclusionary hard gay? Is there such a word?

the nazi idea of "Volksgemeinschaft", their basis of national "socialism" being that "germans help germans" and they just have to pretend that there is no class and thus there wont be one, is only one expression of bourgeoise ideology trying to hush class struggle, which liberls are only the left bourgeoise variation of.
since they cannot adress the real economic power structure as the root of conflict they focus on identity politics.

rly makes u think

Why doesn't cat girl like her fish? If I had a cat girl, I'd feed her fish.

maybe it's because the fish seems sexually aroused at the thought of being devoured


gays don't exist and are purely fictional

True. Everyone is bisexual at birth. Then the environment shapes sexuality. XX and XY are just shaped on different ways.


IDpol is used to keep the American imperial system afloat now that the US’ demographics aren’t nearly as white as they used to be (le 56% meme isn’t just a meme).
The options are SLAY KWEEN WoC Hampton-bred, Harvard-trained Raytheon CEO’s who lead cool prayers composed by Lin-Manuel Miranda before glassing Palestinian kids or a violent, South African-esque revolution.
Vote for the most batshit white nationalist GOP candidates to prevent the former.

Freud said it but I'm not sure on what basis

a mildly sexist hypothesis i once said half in jest half believingly was that it's a result of women coming into more positions of power and finding a more assertive voice.
this hypothesis went that mean identify based on role, while women identify based on appearance. this is why at least nominally, white nationalists can enjoy GTA:San Andreas (while they may sperg out about black characters to preserve a group role with the "white nationalist" group.) while a black woman can find inspiration in a black female CEO even when they're an indebted English student from a working class background at a mediocre college, but not in J.K. Rowling (because she looks different, and female gender roles in current society put such emphasis on appearance.)

Most people I know, not just liberals, people from every political background, are either passively blase about the complex interconnected systems that govern their lives or they have the one thing that they think is just the absolute evil/wrong in the world, and that if we could just fix or remove that one thing everything would improve dramatically for everyone. That's where you get people who are caught up in blaming patriarchy, or the Jews, or Soros, or Koch brothers, or Lizard people, or inept government, or corrupt media, or capitalism, or Muslims, or religion itself, or the oil companies, or Trump, or Hillary, or whatever they view to be the degenerating factor that begets all others.

To try to condense my answer to your question - they aren't out to justify their position. It is a position arrived at out of, for lack of a better way of putting it, intellectual laziness and to some degree mental self defense. Trying to attain a holistic view of the world's problems leads one down a pretty depressing path that most people will simply avoid. It's too complex, too big, too brutal and too un-fixable for the human mind to hold on to comfortably. And that's the essence of my answer - the people you are talking about feel comfort in having identified what they perceive to be 'the dark side' and having done that they also feel confident in having found 'the good'. They likely don't feel inclined to question the nature of things beyond this point because the dichotomy they've arrived at is simple for their mind to maintain and is often roughly the same as the viewpoint of their peer group. To question the state of things beyond this is to disrupt their own mental and interpersonal harmony, and this is something that people seem to tend to avoid.