On justice, meritocracy, abuse and stability

Discrimination sometimes feels illogical. Especially considering many of its forms are collectively rejected in terms of validity. Why doesn't it disappear?
My hypothesis ties it closely to meritocracy.

Any living system, be it a cell, an animal or society, has mechanisms for self preservation (homeostasis). The meaning of term in English and Greek describes a conservation of internal environment conditions despite external pressures to change them.

In social systems, this selects general principles that minimize dangerous instabilities. For instance, the establishment of trust among people lowers the collective sum of individual transaction costs, making the whole society more stable.

Abusers usually function like free riders, reaping extra individual surplus from interactions by visibly signalling compliance to social rules and breaking them in hidden mode. The reason they are socially allowed to do that is they are relatively few, thus having a parasite sort of role without compromising social stability.

Which lead me back to meritocracy. It's the basic mechanism that ties individual life meaning and survival strategy to social stability and preservation. In other words, it brings an appearance of justice to current inequalities.

The trick is that current inequalities are not neutral to the rules of the social game, meaning they allow some to systematically play with better cards. But poker is a great analogy in the sense winning can be the product of luck, skill or both. And this uncertainty condition keeps the game stable nature. Players accept this condition and maintain engagement, basically because all of them believe they can win. More than that, they mentally maximize the potential contributions of their efforts over luck because that feels much better than being stuck with random fate. Freedom is sweet, not necessarily true.

Discrimination is a wake up call. It shows the system isn't fair. But as long as that is kept at levels that don't threat the collective weighted illusion of merit and meaning, people will stay engaged and discriminated groups will be treated as acceptable collateral damage for the sake of common good, also known as social stability.

That's why social change such as the rise of women in power requires coordinated group efforts to create social instability and force the system to a new equilibrium point (when rules gradually adapt to accommodate this new state of affairs). Again, this must incorporate a collective sense of merit, otherwise balance won't be achieved. And this is how discrimination and meritocracy relate to each other. They are skill and luck in poker, producing winners and losers in a proportion that won't make too many fall in disbelief and leave the table. Until that happens and the rules are slightly changed for people to come back. And the casino keeps going. Since centuries ago. No predictable end at sight.