Citizen scoring.

a reply to: Aazadan

I just hate everything about this.

I've known too many "scary" types of people that turned out to have the biggest most generous hearts,
while those that seemed to live a religious "holy" type of life turned out to be pure evil.
These types of systems can't measure that. Don't judge a book by it's cover has been proven to me over and over.

The only thing I would agree on is if you could give a point to stupid drivers. You would only get one or two a year so you'd have to use them sparingly. After so many points that person would have to pay a fine.

On a side note there is a site called mylife. I checked it out and sure enough I was on it, and there was a comment about me. It was a positive one, but it creeped me out.

Yes it was all a bit strong , but it's how you're coming across : you needed solutions for the fact that people live with debilitation through no fault of their own and that they get ill from time to time . However these were starkly missing , which raises hackles when you say things like this :

Similarly, why should someone be rewarded if they're naturally gifted and can excel without trying?

So you're saying people should knocked back through social citizen score , because they can afford to relax because they're lucky enough ? Where on earth are you coming from with that ? It's not the land of the living : this is life , not some place to be turned into a fascist utopia

Those people should be encouraged to work to their potential as well.

Where have heard that before, Arbicht Mein Frei (Work sets you free) ?? That was written above the gates of Nazi concentration camps .

You'd like introduce a scoring system to encourage people to work to their potential?

You have to ask - who or what will do the encouraging ? The trouble with your score system is , people are not motivated by National Socialism , in fact we teach anyone who believes in that to remember the Nazis , and the NAtional Socialist Workers Party , that 's where NAzism comes from , it's what NAZI stands for .

You must understand that our countries are more enlightened than that , we are never ever going to be convinced that a bauthoritarian nationalist repressive regime like that of China today , or Stalin's , or Hilter's is one we should adopt for the future ourselves , it would be a step way back in time .

We'd like NAtional Socialism , and little fascists , to die off , and never ever come back , depite that they might try, and despite that ignorant raise their petty ideas for their idea of social improvement . The fact is , they see it suits them , when the truth , it would only suit them . And such is the nature of an idea like Citizen scoring .

If you tried institute realistically , you'd be asking for mass rebellion , and for people to dump technology altogether , never answering via email again , for example . We dont need facebook , we dont need google , we'll just ensure we get rid of them instead , when they try on # like this . It's a despicably divisive idea > we hate it !

There's so much wrong with citizen scoring, i'm spitting teeth trying to verbalise it !

If anyone tries to stick their little fascist score on us they'll have enemies for life !

If they want to graft this utter bullcrap onto the system as it stands at the moment , well f me , that'd be grossly unfair just to start with .

If you want to be of use to the world , start thinking of how the public can rate organisations ,
not the other way round !

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Nazism, is not where the foundations of this lay.

This is not about physical or mental aptitude. It is about encouraging people to push themselves. The greatest crime to society is not murder, theft, or property damage. It is people who have the potential to do great things, that squander the potential and do nothing with it.

The US gives people ample resources to do anything they want, and overcome any obstacle. With everything provided, people still don't do it. They need to start being encouraged to do better, do more, and be better. Personally, politically, financially, and professionally.

originally posted by: DoctorBluechip
There's so much wrong with citizen scoring, i'm spitting teeth trying to verbalise it !

If anyone tries to stick their little fascist score on us they'll have enemies for life !

If they want to graft this utter bullcrap onto the system as it stands at the moment , well f me , that'd be grossly unfair just to start with .

If you want to be of use to the world , start thinking of how the public can rate organisations ,
not the other way round !

Why? Afraid you would be below average and unable to measure up?

originally posted by: Aazadan

Why? Afraid you would be below average and unable to measure up?

That makes my point I think. By whose standards?

You're just proposing a backdoor way to achieve a government that dictates behavior by pretending its a reward / punishment system the individual controls themselves, when in fact the its the opposite. You want to impose your standards on everyone and punish anyone not in lockstep and the world has seen too much of that.

Those in charge decide religion is wrong and its controlled by punishing religious people. Those in charge decide certain speech is wrong and it's controlled by punishing speech. This is scary stuff. You don't fit in, you must sit in the back of the bus.

a reply to: Aazadan

Why? Afraid you would be below average and unable to measure up?

I am not in the least. But I have concerns about those who might be.
Why do you keep defending this? It's a terrible idea, and not in keeping with your usual posts/thinking.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
You want to impose your standards on everyone and punish anyone not in lockstep and the world has seen too much of that.

Not at all. As I've said several times now, we should vote for what criteria are used.

Those in charge decide certain speech is wrong and it's controlled by punishing speech.

Lots of speech is wrong though. It is made not with constructive intentions such as to inform, but with destructive intentions to confuse, obfuscate, or eliminate confidence in public institutions.

Natural News, InfoWars, Russia Today, Project Veritas, Washington Times, and so on. These are not organizations that should be allowed to spread their BS. We can't silence them through the law, first because it would mean overturning the First Amendment, and second because any time you silence them, they'll just go and peddle their disinformation under a new name. Therefore, they must be silenced by making them undesirable to associate with. Open people up who hang with those crowds to ridicule and financial penalties.

Coercive speech such as what comes from those websites hinders the publics ability to make good decisions, and undermines government institutions. Therefore, the best way to fight back is to give people an incentive to be critical of the fringe and ignore it.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DoctorBluechip
There's so much wrong with citizen scoring, i'm spitting teeth trying to verbalise it !

If anyone tries to stick their little fascist score on us they'll have enemies for life !

If they want to graft this utter bullcrap onto the system as it stands at the moment , well f me , that'd be grossly unfair just to start with .

If you want to be of use to the world , start thinking of how the public can rate organisations ,
not the other way round !

Why? Afraid you would be below average and unable to measure up?

Oh, please!

I spent my high school years and on into college achieving and over achieving by every measure.

And I'm sure that my adult life would be a bitter disappointment to you in every possible way because I no longer live up to that potential. But you know what? I don't have to anymore. I know what I can do, and I'm content with who I am now and what I have in life.

I *like* where I am. I love my husband and my son. I *like* being a parent more than a high achiever in society.

Achievement only does so much for me before I got tired of it. It's ultimately empty and fulfills nothing.

originally posted by: angeldoll
I am not in the least. But I have concerns about those who might be.
Why do you keep defending this? It's a terrible idea, and not in keeping with your usual posts/thinking.

It's completely in line with my usual thinking. I'm all for helping people, but at the same time I'm also all for motivating people to be the best that they can be.

I also see serious issues in our society right now and think that this would be a fix. Some of those issues have to do with media, others with government, others with social issues. The root cause of all of them however is societal decay. People are becoming worse over time. Lower standards, lower earnings, lower morality, lower discipline, lower expectations. This is a trend that needs to be reversed, and the best way to do so is for society to decide on what it values, and then to punish or reward people according to those values.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I *like* where I am. I love my husband and my son. I *like* being a parent more than a high achiever in society.

So you're fine with America declining and not being the best country in the world then? Or do you expect everyone else to work and make that happen while you sit back and reap the rewards without contributing?

a reply to: ketsuko

"I *like* where I am. I love my husband and my son. I *like* being a parent more than a high achiever in society. "


There was a time when this was the norm, and I believe the world was a better place in a lot of aspects.
You are truly the highest achiever in society in my book!

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ketsuko
I *like* where I am. I love my husband and my son. I *like* being a parent more than a high achiever in society.

So you're fine with America declining and not being the best country in the world then? Or do you expect everyone else to work and make that happen while you sit back and reap the rewards without contributing?

At this point in my life, I work at my job and do the best I can there.

I also do my best to raise a productive young man. I also stand firm in support of my husband who is very successful at his job which is very important.

I'm content with that. Anything else I might have done in life wasn't going to advance the world much more. I might have been a veterinarian. I might have gone into field biology. I don't think the world will fall apart without me.

And certainly, citizens who are happy and content at what they do are far more productive and better at it than ones who do it under duress.

a reply to: Aazadan

America declining is not due to stay at home moms/or dads. If anything it is the opposite.

originally posted by: ketsuko
And certainly, citizens who are happy and content at what they do are far more productive and better at it than ones who do it under duress.

Not true. The highest achieving societies are rarely happy fun places. They're the ones that punish any sort of failure harshly. Happy societies that enjoy life tend to not produce anything of value, which is fine if that's what you're after but is incompatible with the idea of American Exceptionalism.

If we as a society no longer seek to be the best, then why do we still base policies on the idea that people need to work hard and suffer in order to succeed? It seems to me, that that philosophy says we want a high achieving society instead. Which means we should get serious about it and start actually addressing the root of the issue which is that most people need some extra incentive in order to be structured into highly capable people.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
America declining is not due to stay at home moms/or dads. If anything it is the opposite.

I never said it was. I did however make mention of families that have more kids than they can comfortably afford. My personal opinion on this is the opposite of what you're implying. I think that if you can't afford your future family on a single persons income, then you shouldn't be encouraged to have kids.

It doesn't do anyone any good to wind up like the example I used.

Edit: On the subject of stay at home parents. I have no problem with the concept, but I would adjust scoring for them to be based on their kids behavior. Low test scores is a mark against the parent. Poor behavior is a mark against the parents. And so on. Encourage good parenting again.

a reply to: Aazadan

Your definition of American exceptionalism and mine are complete opposite.

I take American exceptionalism = personal liberty / freedom

Your definition = North Korea,

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Aazadan

Your definition of American exceptionalism and mine are complete opposite.

I take American exceptionalism = personal liberty / freedom

Your definition = North Korea,

The definition of it, that proponents of the theory use is that Americans are the best at everything, because we work harder, strive for success, and compete. We're supposed to be the elites of the world. But one cannot be elite without work to maintain that position. Thus, if that's the position we're going to hold we need to work to take it. We are far from the best at anything these days, and if we want to be the best then it is time to turn that around. If we do not want to be the best, then we should stop claiming that subsidizing people makes the nation noncompetitive.

a reply to: Aazadan

You just keep proving my point. I understand exactly what you want.

Freedom does not mean if 51% of the country believes one way, they should be able to administer punishment to those in a minority, control their activities through punishment/reward and effectively silence speech they don't agree with, which is clearly what you want.

To do what you wish, the Constitution would need to be trashed and I'm fully aware there are some who oppose the freedoms it gives. You included it seems. You are in fact saying you want to silence speech through punishment. That is scary and I'm surprised you don't see that.

Are you a student of Maoist teachings?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Freedom does not mean if 51% of the country believes one way, they should be able to administer punishment to those in a minority, control their activities through punishment/reward and effectively silence speech they don't agree with, which is clearly what you want.

It's easy enough to account for that with a weighting system.

What I want is to encourage people to be better. Better manners, more generous, more well read, better educated, more moral, more financially savvy, more productive, and so on. We should push people, and continue to push them until the worst person in society reads more than Teddy Roosevelt, writes better than Hamilton, is more patient than Ghandi, more loving than Jesus, more creative than Thomas Edison, more hard working than John Henry, more insightful than Einstein, and more competent than Bill Gates.

If we are all created equal, then reaching those heights should be possible for every single person. If we are not all equal, then it just means that some people need some additional help in order to reach that level.

To do what you wish, the Constitution would need to be trashed and I'm fully aware there are some who oppose the freedoms it gives. You included it seems.

What I suggested was done in such a way that it would not violate the Constitution. Banning speech violates the Constitution. Encouraging people to ignore those who spout nonsense does not.