The modern world in the west has and does contain cultures that promote meritocracy more successfully than any other examples I can think of.

No one is suggesting a perfect meritocracy or that it can't be improved. These are matters of debate but you just promote post modernism when you knock the meritocratic idea as a function of modern society.....it's highly likely you own your job to it.

How to best promote meritocracy fairly without damaging the very nature of meritocracy is a topic for long discussions and much detail.

When sprinters line up for a 100 metres race the point is to find the fastest in order of outcome. The interests of meritocracy aren't best served by enforcing handicaps onto the most able.

It is the job of a fair society that it also should be protecting its weakest members but I massively part ways with regarding typical progressive ideas as the way to do it.

Agreed zealots disfigure real progress because they are wedded to ideology over practical outcomes.

I am an anti progressive but what is and isn't 'progressive' is up for discussion of course. I will concede that the intent with some of its ideas are noble and worthy of support...as I've said previously...nothing wrong with encouraging civility in society. But if the outcome gets you political correctness then you can see how a noble intent has become disfigured. Hence the cure becomes worse than the problem....another way is required.

Who wins is a practical outcome, who is right is subjective. Though western society already tries to balance these realities with certain fundamental universal rights such as free education and mostly free healthcare. How much further and what it does over and beyond this are the bones of contention and the discussion of whether you are in fact producing societal harm or good.

I agree with you that a fair society looks to ensure opportunity for all who are invested within the system. But I doubt we are going to agree on much after that....or indeed that you would regard the latter half of the sentence as important.

I like the fact that you are willing to discuss these ideas more seriously......The planks of progressive thought and attitudes can be discussed singularly as too examine where it works and fails.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

We are a 'post-modern' society, there is no point holding onto modernist concepts, as they're effectively dimissed by the philosophical discourses establishing post modernism.

I would argue that meritocracy and progressivism are essentially the same argument, and flaws - Progressives who approach society in a modernist concept, are making the same mistakes in understanding reality as those objectivists (modernists) and positivists (pre-modernist) - that social 'truth' exists (it doesn't).

You can't have a meritocracy without being informed by Progressive movements - because these movements have their basis in the fact that society isn't meritocratic.

Not all of the discourses and arguments that make up progressivism are sound, like anything its a melting pot of different ideas, arguments and views.

Problem is, like ever and always, the noisy and ignorant c**ts tend to be the loudest. I feel that your view of progressivism is kind of like trying to understand Feminism by only listening to the Radical Marxist Feminist movement (who everyone except them regard as being dicks, ironically).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]