>>713234741
>So exactly what the trump admin is even though they are the 'anti-DEI' but their only qualifiers for him are to be loyal
Correct.
You seem to misunderstand the nature of politics if you have an issue with this, but if you want a TL;DR answer, loyalty is one of the most important qualifiers.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it IS merit, as you can have a really loyal guy, but if he's a gibbering tard then he's nothing but dead weight, but generally if you have a choice between someone merely average, but you can count on them, or someone highly skilled, but ultimately mercenary in their attitude, then you would go with the former.
>You do realize you can have both socialism and a meritocracy in the same bucket
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Practically however, they are, and always will be when we discuss it in the context of Western nations.
>See
Which is why the circulation of elites is a necessary function, and occurs regularly.
When it doesn't, the apparent all powerful aristocratic like entities you describe decay from the inside out, do so, and will continue to do so.
>Neoptism is not built on merit
That directly contradicts the above. Which is it.
>it's a system even worse than what Adachi is complaining about since you don't even need talent
No, just competency. However, talent allows those to rise where in other systems they would be relegated to their current lot in life.
>you just need to be born into a family of wealth and you're set for life without needing to do any work
Yes, those people are very lucky to have had ancestors who either worked hard or were born with the talents that allowed them to secure such wealth. If they then squander it, that's on them.
>It's funny how you find that to be okay.
Why wouldn't I be? Inequality will always exist unless you artificially try to equalize people to the same level, regardless of the conditions.
>You're engaging in utopian thinking
Ironic.
