Citizen scoring.

Almost everyone of your criteria are impacted significantly by ones social class; negatively effecting the lower classes.


As for a rankings system for citizen ship? How diabolically fascist is that? ... I like it.

But lets make it more fun: Every year the weighting of each criteria. Maybe this year being healthy will get you more points; made being unhealthy will get you more points... and so on.

I'd gladly use all your criteria under this system.

a reply to: Aazadan

Writing a dissertation are we?

a reply to: Aazadan
In particular,

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.

Nope, that is the furthest from the truth. Very concerning for privacy rights.


It's on par with the below and much more of something is NOT needed.
"GCHQ data collection regime violated human rights, court rules "

GCHQ’s methods for bulk interception of online communications violated privacy and failed to provide sufficient surveillance safeguards, the European court of human rights has ruled.

Source

a reply to: Aazadan

The most #ing awful idea I have ever heard out of all the awful idea's I have heard on ATS.

The ironic thing is, the OP wouldn't dare out himself with these ideas on one of his public social platforms like Facebook or in real life - as I'm sure he knows full-well that he'd get socially crucified for having such ridiculous thoughts.

I sincerely hope this OP was a joke.

originally posted by: Navieko
The ironic thing is, the OP wouldn't dare out himself with these ideas on one of his public social platforms like Facebook or in real life - as I'm sure he knows full-well that he'd get socially crucified for having such ridiculous thoughts.

I sincerely hope this OP was a joke.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say based on the posting history its not a joke...

force people

a reply to: Aazadan

Does your signature hold weight on this topic?

Every madman is convinced of his own rationality.

Everything you've outlined would be abused in the most horrific manner possible.

You've seen the internet.

originally posted by: Aazadan
As I'm sure most are aware, China has been working on implementing a citizen scoring system. They're still tinkering with the criteria and exact scoring mechanisms but the general idea is that people who score higher, being better citizens according to the state, are afforded greater social freedoms. In the Chinese system some of the privileges that can either be given or taken away are public transit access, internet speed, school choice, job qualifications, and public shaming/recognition.
Thoughts?

It strikes me that this is exactly what is meant by the prediction that only those who have the Mark of the Beast will be allowed to "buy and sell". I think we have now discovered the meaning of that passage in Revelation.
Those who don't worship the Beast will obviously rank low in their citizen scoring, with all the penalties that implies.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Aazadan
As I'm sure most are aware, China has been working on implementing a citizen scoring system. They're still tinkering with the criteria and exact scoring mechanisms but the general idea is that people who score higher, being better citizens according to the state, are afforded greater social freedoms. In the Chinese system some of the privileges that can either be given or taken away are public transit access, internet speed, school choice, job qualifications, and public shaming/recognition.
Thoughts?

It strikes me that this is exactly what is meant by the prediction that only those who have the Mark of the Beast will be allowed to "buy and sell". I think we have now discovered the meaning of that passage in Revelation.
Those who don't worship the Beast will obviously rank low in their citizen scoring, with all the penalties that implies.

So thats it then , collapse and reset must be on the cards soon , how many times has that reset button been pushed

a reply to: Aazadan

Official online presence (giving up your online anonymity) Political engagem

1984 was meant as a warning not a guide book!

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
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.

Ok, so don't donate more. Nothing is forcing anyone to do so.

originally posted by: Nothin
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.

Subsistence is not a useful skill. Knowing how to engage in commerce and exchange something for food is.

If you do not possess both the knowledge and the means to grow food on an industrial scale, it is not useful. Under 1% of the population is currently farmers, and that number is falling.

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

Those in the Bay do want to live in the city, not live in a suburb where they spend 2 hours commuting each way each day.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is social engineering writ large.


Can't understand why anyone would want this.

You don't like social engineering? No desire to make society better?

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

I deliberately didn't include a ranking system, because my own beliefs on those categories are irrelevant. That's something that should be up to society to decide. I only included examples of categories.

If for example, we define family values a certain way, and enough say that's important to society, then people who don't have those values should be punished.

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

Unlikely. Because eventually there would be no undesirables because people would improve themselves.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

I deliberately didn't include a ranking system, because my own beliefs on those categories are irrelevant. That's something that should be up to society to decide. I only included examples of categories.

If for example, we define family values a certain way, and enough say that's important to society, then people who don't have those values should be punished.

According to popular vote, McDonald's should be the food of choice. Walmart would be where we all shop. Anyone who does not comply ought to be punished and severely.

So we should become a nation of fast food addicts who look like the People of Walmart.

Yes, doing everything by popular consensus is awesome and never, ever leads you to degradation.

originally posted by: Lumenari
The level of sexism is just astonishing too. And I rarely throw that word around.

Where is the sexism here? The person in my story has spent roughly the last 10 years perpetually pregnant, because she's obsessed with babies. She married a well off guy, and dropped out of school so he could take care of her. Then she pumped out a lot of children, many more than they could afford, and now they rely on community donations instead.

It's not a commentary on women in general, it's a commentary on one who made bad choices, and for that matter also on her husband who also participated in those bad choices. Society needs incentives to encourage people to not make those types of decisions.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
But lets make it more fun: Every year the weighting of each criteria. Maybe this year being healthy will get you more points; made being unhealthy will get you more points... and so on.

If that's what the voters decide. Maybe out society is terminally ill and what everyone wants deep down is a society that encourages them to be lazy rather than to do more.