ause you know Yale law professor but he says that quote any idea that merit makes inequality deserved is a circle. What merit isn't a real virtue it's just an ideological conceit constructed to launder otherwise offensive inequalities. What do any of those words mean? I feel like if I diagrammed it out, I might be able to understand what he's saying. But here's a general statement. If the clearest you can make your argument is this, you don't really have an argument. No. No. Unless you can be a little bit clearer than that, I'm sorry. I can't take it too seriously.

But then he had a good point that made me reassess. He pointed out that merit is highly driven not entirely but highly driven by your parental resources. And then I said, "Oh, okay. Now you're talking. That's a reasonable point of view." So if you are rich, for example, more likely you will be funded to go to a good school. You'll be in a good neighborhood, you know, less crime, less drugs. I don't know about the drugs, but there should be a gigantic difference in meritocracy, meaning that some people who have the brains and the ambition will also have the parental backing and some won't and that difference could make all the difference. That's not a bad that's not a terrible opinion. So I started out thinking that I was just going to sort of mock this point of view because I like meritocracy and anybody who's arguing against it is going to be a fool. But that's actually a reasonably good point, isn't it? That your meritocracy won't go that far unless you've got some resources behind it. Now, in my case, I came from a generation where you didn't need that many resources behind it. You could still work it out. Yeah, that would have been my case. But at the moment in the current world, yeah, it does seem like the resources your parents put into it are going to drive your success of your meritocracy. So wasn't expecting to have my mind changed by that, but maybe it was a little bit. I mean, I don't know that I would do anything differently, but i