Premise isn't solid

[arcsector]

Disclaimer: I do not explicitly endorse the views parroted by either side, this is simply a critique of the repo and content

Issue Summary

For the author to put forth a solid conclusion, the premise must first be airtight. There seems to be some debate in the community on whether or not your initial premise (diversity is morally better than a meritocracy) is solid.

Issue Background

The open source community is a very strictly logical one, so just coming in and saying "Hey guys diversity is better so we're gonna do it," is not going to help people understand why this way is better. They need to be convinced, and in some ways, handheld through the entire process if you are to sway values and opinions.

Proposed Issue Solution

Create a piece of literature to explain the logical steps that are taken in order to show that diversity is morally better than meritocracy.

Proposed Solution Examples

There could be a section in the index.md directly after the meritocracy wikipedia article and before the Dehumanizing Myth of the Meritocracy in order to explain why diversity is morally better than meritocracy.

Alternatively, there could be a section in the Dehumanizing Myth of the Meritocracy dedicated to explaining this. Possibly after the The Evil World section and before the To Err is Human, to Code Divine section.

I think we can all agree that responses that aren't constructive ("make a PR," "you're a bigot for even saying that diversity isn't better than a meritocracy," "this issue is against the code of conduct") and go against the code of conduct should be made privately.