this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
825 points (99.2% liked)
Not The Onion
21182 readers
1530 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
By merit??
who judges that merit? how is it defined?
In typical fediverse fashion, the users responding to you have no answer so they get stuck on semantics and counter arguing your question rather than the intent.
I genuinely would like a well thought out response to this too. Would merit be someone with many years of teaching experience? Maybe school administration?
Do those things make that person capable of performing board responsibilities? Do those things preclude them from making creepy remarks (I highly suspect they don't)
For the record, the dude here has been on the board for 12 years, which should be more than enough time to learn the necessary skill set to do the job. Doesn't make him less creepy though.
Perhaps the argument that it isn't possible to assess merit for a job position is so far outside the realms of reason that asking for clarification is the only way to formulate an answer.
But if you want a simple, quotable answer for the obvious question as it is written, here you go:
It's tremendously disappointing to see people act like assessing fitness for a role isn't a thing that has been going on since the dawn of civilisation.
Get a grip.
Now, if you want argue that this isn't how things are currently done ? I’m right there with you.
The system is a shambolic remnant of what it should be ? couldn't agree more.
A lot of it is probably by design ? sure, i'm down for that perspective.
But "It isn't possible to assess merit for a job role", is a troll at best or extreme ignorance at worst.
If people weren't asking "are you sure that this is what you meant?" i'd be worried for the state of basic reasoning.
Since you went generic instead of specific to the circumstance: this man has 12 years experience as a board member. Would he not have the qualifications to perform the job?
It's not like he did this in his first year, or even first few years... At least not that we know of.
The answer is generic ....which means it can be applied to the specific circumstance.
Here is an example, as the answer to your question :
Going by the example evaluation steps i provided, he would have the qualifications to perform the job , if:
If you want to know if he's the most qualified for the job you also need to:
and he would need to be at the top of the rankings.
If you're going to ask who does these evaluations in the specific example being talked about, it would be the voters, perhaps a final approval board as well, if one exists in these scenarios.
Outside of that example, it can vary.
I shouldn't have to but I’m going to point out that i said this is a simple quotable answer, not that it was the only answer, or even the best answer.
My argument has always been that evaluation of fitness for a role isn't impossible. Not that there is a perfect method, nor that these methods are being used competently or at all. Just that they do exist.
As for personal opinion, this guy sounds like an asshole, i personally know lots of incompetent people in positions they neither earned nor are qualified for, I’m not saying the current state of things is good, because i don't think it is.
I hear schools are pretty good at giving people these funny things called "tests" to assess an individual's knowledge on a certain subject. Not only are schools good at testing, I hear there is a WHOLE INDUSTRY built on creating and running them.
You know, they could give those to other people too I'll bet! In fact, I'll bet you can use them to qualify doctors, lawyers, barbers, auto mechanics and all sorts of people!
Oh wait, these are politicians. We shouldn't do that to them. I don't know why, but it just feels wrong. Never mind.
Absolutely! It's just a complete coincidence that the people who the school system is failing are barred from fixing it because in order to pass the test you have to have done well in school. It makes perfect sense.
It's not like the US has a history of refusing to educate people, and then refusing to let them participate in civic matters by gating that access behind tests. The US certainly has never, say, made passing a test a requirement to vote to disenfranchise people.
And we all know that, of course, that any test would be super effective at preventing the abuse the above article is about. You just put the question "are you sexually attracted to children," on the test. That way you'd keep out creeps. And no one would ever lie on a test. That'd be ridiculous.
I don't know why people are disagreeing. It's a perfect system!
How about a polygraph test/examination. I understand they are known to be inaccurate sometimes. I doubt someone could suppress their deeply held lifelong urges enough to fool one with a question about their sexual desires.
Setting aside the fact that polygraphs are pseudoscience mumbo jumbo that don't work in any meaningful capacity, and the results of which are really just the vibes of the person running it (with all of their bigotry/biases on full display.)
The bigger issue is that there are over thirteen thousand school districts in the US. If each school board is four people on average, that's over fifty thousand people you'd have to do polygraphs for. And that's if all you wanted to do was school boards.
Trying to get all of those people polygraphs would be an absolute logistical nightmare. There aren't that many polygraphers out there.
And we shouldn't be legitimizing polygraphs anyway. They have time and time again been shown to be absolute bunk, and to discriminate against people with issues like anxiety (or really, anyone who gets agitated when you accuse them of something). The only people who can reliably pass polygraphs are sociopaths, which feels like the opposite of what you want to be selecting for here.
there is no test to run for, or be on a school board.
what would this test be, exactly? are you saying school board members should have to pass a civil service type of test before they can run, or after they are elected?
Shhhh, don't overload them with reason, it's rare to see this kind of naivete in it's natural form.
edit: some salty salty lurkers around today, come on in, the waters fine, i'm sure you have coherent arguments to add.
Oh come on, but it's fun!
Yes, but you have to go slowly or it'll overwhelm them.
Do you know what a bad faith argument is?
Yes, and it's not this. I'm not making an argument either. I'm asking you a clear and obvious question.
Pretending you don’t know what merit is is a bad faith argument
Just to be clear, you're arguing that merit/competence can't be accurately judged and therefore should be ignored in favour of popularity ?
it can't be judged without well-defined criteria, no.
seriously, what is the qualification or criteria for being a good school board member? tell me. I'd like to know.
because as far as I am aware, there absolutely is none. anyone can run for school board.
That's a partial answer at best , a nice deflection though.
So your argument is that there is no possible criteria by which competence/ability can be judged for a school board position so popularity is the best option ?
Once you answer the original question or the newly revised version above i can give you some idea on this.
Who can run for a school board and how a school board member is evaluated for the position are unrelated.
It's not an argument. It's a fact.
My local school board anyone can run. The only requirement is you are a resident of the district you represent, and you are over 18, and you are a registered voter. That's literally it. There are no other requirements, qualifications, or criteria for running for school board.
That seems definitive, good to have a rock solid source.
Useful information , eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.
Technically, i suppose it could be considered an initial screening, so you're not entirely incorrect, just incorrect that it's the only evaluation mechanism.
If it were , there'd be no need for votes, first person to apply and be eligible would automatically get the job.
I have no idea what you are saying now. You're saying, you should dictatorially be given the power to appoint school board members, and you'd do so solely on a first come, first given, basis?
OK, so you are saying you want to be a dictator of school board members, because you are the one who should have sole authority in this area. And you would not judge people based on qualifications or merit?
OK.
I mean, not at all , read the reply again.
Ah, i see, you don't have an actual response so you weaponise ignorance, that's actually pretty clever.
It's hard to argue with someone not using reason as a basis, you neither have to present a reasonable argument nor support it, that's downright devious.
In case that reply was serious and you just missed what i was saying, i'll try and simplify for you and leave out the extra words around it so there's nothing to be confused about...ready ?
Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.
No dude, legally. It is. It is the only criteria that restricts and defines who can run for the position.
You can make up arbitrary things in your head, but legally you cannot stop anyone from running or winning, with the made up criteria in your head.
You can go and campaign to change your local election laws, btw.
ok, i'll change the emphasis.
Ok, so leaving out the subjective argument of who should be qualified, let's go with straight up logic, i'll bullet point it for you.
I'll even start with your very correct assertion that anybody who can run, can win.
I'll also requote myself from an earlier reply.
Perhaps "evaluated for" is more accurate.
Perhaps the disconnect is that you think everyone who is eligible is qualified for the job and it's just the winner of all these qualified people that is determined by the vote ?
You should ask people in a professional setting that work with schools this instead of demanding the answers from the black box of the internet.
No u!
Seriously, do you even vote in your local school board elections? I do. If so, what criteria do you use? I vote according to the educational platform they propose.
None of that has anything to do with merit of qualifications that are hypothetically being raised as criteria for evaluating a school board member's performance or competency.
It's not demanding answers, it's pointing out the typical lemmy/reddit hypocracy of sitting on a illusory high horse, getting outraged, and refusing to actually deal with the problem on your local level where you do have the ability to make a difference.
or if you want to be really extreme, you could move to this district in TN and run for school board yourself.
I dont think you can follow up with "seriously" after that.
You have already diminished the seriousness and effectiveness of this conversation to practically none, so this then becomes a conversation for fun... Which I dont find you to be.
You do nothing but try to find things to get offended about.
Says the person that hunted down one of my other comments after I didnt agree with their rude take.
No I just disagree with you and others. It happens from time to time. Its called having an opinion. Its a shocking revelation, I know.
You disagree that it's ok to ask why representatives don't represent the population? Got it.
Why lie when we are the only 2 people that will ever see these comments? That isn't where you started and not alone in the things you have said that can be disagreed with.
Its pretty silly.
You attacked me for noticing that every single one of their politicians was morbidly obese. No? Whom is lying now?
From the rest of this thread i get the impression you'll appreciate this...so..
Pretty sure that would be a who rather than a whom.
Carry on though...
Attacked you? Maybe reread the first comment I wrote to you without the victimhood.
That's not even required (though it would most likely be more accurate ) , there are some easy , low-hanging fruit answers to this question that don't need expertise.
I'm just interested in seeing if they really think popularity is the best option here.
any elected position is a popularity contest.
popularity as the only criteria or as one of many criteria ?
are you being deliberate obtuse?
an election is about who gets the most votes. there are no other criteria involved.
unless the election system has some other type of ruleset, like the presidential electoral college, or a more than majority requirement.
So just to be clear when you say popularity, you mean who people like the most, on a personal level ?
Not something like who people think is the most fit for the job, regardless of personal like or dislike ?
Dude, I am gonna ask that you look at your actions here cause... Let's be honest the frog is not a reasonable person.
Do you expect to find a nuanced new way to handle elections of the school board?
Or perhaps, do you honestly expect this troll to say something that changes the whole context of this conversation or make you feel that they have changed in some dramatic way?
I say if you look at it, you are legitimizing a pointless conversation where they weaponize apathy and make it look valuable by comparison to complex issues on a topic you aren't knowledgeable enough in to argue against, "no u!"
They never expected an authority figure on it and wouldnt accept one either. They just want your rage and your attention. They aren't fun enough to play with for you to give either.
meh, i was hoping it might be a bit more fun later on but it's been lacklustre so far.
You can't reason someone out of a position they've not reasoned themselves in to but it's sometimes interesting to see if they genuinely believe the positions they tout and hear how they got there.
There are easily understood ways of measuring fitness for a position, an easy answer to the actual question of how evaluations could be possible is to use the criteria for what would be considered a successful run as a school board member, historically and ideally.
Use those criteria to evaluate who has a track record of achieving these things, or the potential/skills to go on to achieve these things during the allotted time.
Does this happen? rarely. Could it potentially work, absolutely.
Personal likeability/popularity is probably a part of those criteria (as with any position involving any politics) but it's not the only one.
Not at all, there's nothing to indicate any kind of space for an adjustment in their view, if they even have an actual perspective beyond trolling.
I'm not sure random internet replies legitimise clear bad-faith troll takes.
As i said, my point here wasn't really to change minds it was more interest in the mindset and reasoning skills of someone who'd post something like that, think of it as internet anthropology.
I don't really have any rage, it's like being angry at a chihuahua for barking.
I'm not expecting good-faith or well reasoned arguments, so I’m not disappointed or angry when they don't appear.
So you waste your time for the sake of it? I'd say something about not being able to reason someone out of a position they didnt use reason to get into in the first place but I guess its repetitive.
You can spend your time as you want but the trolls do build their world by the responses of others. It makes them more real and let's useless conversation bog down better ones. They are seeking answers they know they won't get to make it seem like their world is more figured out for waving away other thoughts.
I dont know. I dont get any joy out of arguing the minutia of nonsense. It feels like it just fills my own head with it and doesnt make me more empathetic to understand that. Personally I am upset to find that someone doesnt want to talk but use me as a springboard for their own stuff but oh well.
Glad you are ok with it I guess.
I stated exactly what my reasons are for engaging,
I think the word you are looking for is recursive, i could be wrong though.
Genuine question, why would i care how they build their world ?
If they want to build a mental echochamber, who am i to deny them their delusions ?
The argument about bogging up otherwise useful conversations has merit though, I’ll consider that going forward.
Though, my side of the argument is still written as a good faith reply so there might be benefit in seeing actual replies, if only from one side...hmm..i'll think on this.
It's not really joy and i'm not really arguing the minutia expecting coherent replies, as i said it's interesting to me to try and understand different kinds of people, it helps me better communicate in situations where the other party is conversing in good faith.
I'm not really looking to build empathy for that either, perhaps some pity in some really tragic cases where you can see they are truly struggling, but those aren't usually trolls, just people struggling with people things.
A lot of the time the useful bits aren't in the bad faith nonsense itself but how it's structured, the way in which the "logical" pivots occur, the word choice or something else that isn't the actual content itself.
I get that it might not be like that for everyone.
I think we might have fundamentally different perspectives on what a conversation can be, but in this case I wasn't expecting genuine engagement, so I’m not upset or disappointed to find out there wasn't any.
I'm also not worried about them being upset by my approach, because bad-faith trolls deserve no worry.
I think to a degree you can see our different styles in just our replies itself, I do care about conversation. I like it and think it's best when it shares information or opinion about people who care to do so. I also dont think to think I can control it but add my opinion so it is seen and move on when it is obviously not productive.
Practical but aware that I am not infinite. Or maybe I am just more tired than other people.
And I dunno I care about others. I think frustrated yipping at each other isn't fun empatheticly but I could be wrong about it. If you find interest in this conversation I am not meaning to stop you just wanted to know you were not stuck in that recursive loop (that was the word, thank you) against your own better judgement.
I can see the difference in style but i think it's also a difference in perspective. For me, most interactions have useful information in them, even the ones like we've been talking about. There is a range of information that you can only get (or is more prevalent in) interactions that aren't a standard sharing of ideas or opinions, for me at least.
As i said, i do understand this is not the same for everyone.
I will admit that my empathy seems to be non-standard, it's not like i don't have any but the situations in which it applies seem to differ from what i hear from others.
When i said fun in that initial reply, what i really mean was interest, in a sense that new information/perspectives are enjoyable because of the influx of new information.
Having to work through and around the yipping from one side is sometimes a requirement to get to the interesting bits, it's not fun, but it is what it is.
i appreciate the heads up though, i'm not immune to getting sucked past the point of interest sometimes.