Citizen scoring.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Or, to give another example: People buy into the BS from Alex Jones, but never admit to it publicly. This is subverting our nations rationality. If you associate with Alex Jones, you should be forced to do so in a public setting without anonymity. When people have social pressure to keep them in line, they are more discerning with who they associate with. That in turn creates more credible social circles, and less nonsense getting spewed. By removing the anonymous side of things, individuals will self censor and put to rest the whole fake news epidemic.

So eliminate privacy and control speech. Now where have we heard that one before?

The real goal of your proposal is to control speech and thought through Pavlovian conditioning using technology. Why not just say so in the first place. Either join in groupthink or pay the price.

That's some scary reasoning. I believe a few books have been written on that subject and the end result I suspect you would not like even though you are for it, because in the end you may not be on the side in control.

I personally would take up arms in a revolt and I'm basically and anti-war pacifist except in matters of self defense. I can't help but wonder if you actually understand what you are proposing? If you do.............

This is like an episode of The Orville, Majority Rules. It’s all about social ratings on the internet.

originally posted by: dug88
Alright, you start. Make a new account with your real info, post a link to your facebook account, posting history on any other sites you visit, a list of accounts you have on sites and services, copies of your bank accounts and credit card statements, pay stubs, receipts and bills for the last several years, address, value of your house, value of all your assets, tax returns, medical records, references from every employer you've ever had, personal references from friends, enemies and family etc. Then ATS can give you your score as to appraise your value as a human or I guess as a cog in society.....

There are websites where I've done this. ATS is not one of those, which proves my point. A website that caters to far right extremism, deep state theories, and Russian propaganda is not the sort of website I want to be known for associating with in public.

I maintain a very carefully curated public profile with my name attached to it in order to give off a certain image. And I only associate with legitimate groups on it.

My opinion is...who gives the slightest # about those things you list off as being a worthwhile way to judge a person? I judge people by the things they do and not much else.

So do I. For example, I have a cousin. She was very smart, had a bright future ahead of her. Decided she wanted to give up independence to be a housewife and stay at home mom. She did nothing with her life. 0 income, 0 skills, nearly 0 job history, and she's pumped out something like 7 kids in the last 9 years. Complete waste of a person, if there were a system in place that could have prevented that, it would be 7 fewer kids in poverty, and one more productive person in society.

If I see someone try their best at things and treat people around them decently and with respect then they're probably alright people whatever their situation. Anything else really doesn't seem worth judging. Everyone's got their own path in life and # people that try and control other people and force them to live in a way that they see fit.

Different paths are fine, but one should do so responsibly. Your first and foremost obligation is to make the country a better place, by making yourself a better person. If you get complacent and stop improving, you'll be left behind.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So you want to grants different levels of freedom based on criteria that will be determined by who?

Not at all. Free association, free travel... those are things that should not be infringed on. That's why I said we should use a different system and make it economic. Being a better citizen translates directly into more money in your pocket.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Aazadan
The truth is, I think a system like this would be fantastic in the US as a way to encourage competitiveness among the population and force people to be better.

Or, you could simply move to China and takes yer chances.

The Chinese system is not competitive. That is what can make such a system work. Only one person can be the best citizen, if someone works harder for that, the old champion is no longer the best.

Competition has allowed for America to be an economic powerhouse. It's time we turn that same idea on ourselves culturally and domestically.

a reply to: Aazadan

So your metric would determine who was a good "citizen" or not.


This is so dystopian that if it wasn't posted here, I'd think this was a satire piece by The Onion.


It's disturbing.

Truly disturbing.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
The real goal of your proposal is to control speech and thought through Pavlovian conditioning using technology. Why not just say so in the first place. Either join in groupthink or pay the price.

Control speech? Not at all. Encourage people to think critically about what others are saying and only listen to sources that are credible? Absolutely.

I personally would take up arms in a revolt and I'm basically and anti-war pacifist except in matters of self defense. I can't help but wonder if you actually understand what you are proposing? If you do.............

I understand it 100%. We use Democracy to quantify and define our values as a society. Then we hold people to them and reward those who go above and beyond.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

So your metric would determine who was a good "citizen" or not.


This is so dystopian that if it wasn't posted here, I'd think this was a satire piece by The Onion.

Those are just some suggested metrics for discussion. Proper metrics should be arrived on through democracy. Placing issues onto a ballot, including them through ranked choice voting, and then voting for the good/bad side of that issue, and the weight to assign to it. Update these every election.

a reply to: Aazadan

You say the poor person is the better okay but then the rich person who gave ten times the amount will then decide that if ten times the donation of a poor person isn't enough why should they donate anymore to a charity. That's my issue. You say the poor if the better but then some will say the rich is the better so who decides and what will the ramifications be for choosing one over the other because you can't score them the same because one will believe it isn't worth it.


The UBI was just a mention. I never meant that it had something to do with your post I just thought I'd mention my belief in it because it would be a sort of system in some sense and wanted to get the system I think would be good known.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Nothin
Eugenics in slow-motion, sounds like a NWO, globalist wet-dream.

How does this have anything to do with eugenics? Eugenics uses selective breeding. I am simply suggesting that everyone is encouraged to push themselves to their limits.

Oh crap!! Just had a flashback.
This is the 'poster' whom actually wrote that we need not teach children critical thinking, because ..."thinking is not necessary"..., and that 'folks don't need to learn about growing and catching food, because all sane people know that food comes from grocery stores' (paraphrased).

ATS thread on education

Feels more like a psyop, or AI trying to gauge how humans react to NWO ideas.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

So your metric would determine who was a good "citizen" or not.


This is so dystopian that if it wasn't posted here, I'd think this was a satire piece by The Onion.

Those are just some suggested metrics for discussion. Proper metrics should be arrived on through democracy. Placing issues onto a ballot, including them through ranked choice voting, and then voting for the good/bad side of that issue, and the weight to assign to it. Update these every election.

So we should vote for the type of dictatorship they offer us.

a reply to: Aazadan

"Everyone" wants to live in the Bay Area?

Pretty sure I don't and never will and that's I'm not out there.

This is social engineering writ large.


Can't understand why anyone would want this.

No.

Although I think it would make a good fiction horror story.

a reply to: Aazadan

I know. It sucks when other people get to live their lives in their own way and not according to how you'd force them to do it.

Of course the other high irony I see in this whole diatribe post is that this is a poster who constantly harps on about how impossible it is to live the way the OP thinks people should live.

So, let's put this system in place and punish everyone for not living in ways the OP believes they should even though those standards are, by the OP's own railing and moaning, impossible to attain in today's world.

a reply to: theatreboy

this idea is utter horse# but we do not have capitalism we have a command economy that's centrally planned by the federal reserve

a reply to: Aazadan

So do I. For example, I have a cousin. She was very smart, had a bright future ahead of her. Decided she wanted to give up independence to be a housewife and stay at home mom. She did nothing with her life. 0 income, 0 skills, nearly 0 job history, and she's pumped out something like 7 kids in the last 9 years.

Just... wow.

Being a mother is now non-productive and not being independent. Family is bad, production to the State is good! Your own personal decisions do not matter!

That being said, you do realize that the obvious conclusion of your proposal will be getting rid of the undesirables of the State.

Stalin, is that you?

a reply to: Lumenari

Op would really hate seeing what I've done with my life ...

Oh noes, sacrificing my career prospects to work part-time so I can play mom. What a shame. Women shouldn't be allowed to breed unless they're stupid. Nevermind that stupid tends to pass itself on ... which is why it's important for smart to breed too.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

Op would really hate seeing what I've done with my life ...

Oh noes, sacrificing my career prospects to work part-time so I can play mom. What a shame. Women shouldn't be allowed to breed unless they're stupid. Nevermind that stupid tends to pass itself on ... which is why it's important for smart to breed too.

The level of sexism is just astonishing too. And I rarely throw that word around.

This is why America is on the verge of swirling down the drain... that ideas like this are discussed on a forum instead of simply being laughed at or shamed off the internet.

Someone going to make a black supremacy thread next so we can see how we can integrate it into our lives?