I have to disagree with you there. If the population was full of ambitious, intelligent individuals, then who would do the shitty but vital jobs? Sterilisation of stupid people will only be possible when we've fully automatized these jobs, until then we have to cope with them and smile and wave them goodbye after they fixed our plumbing or made our fries at McDonalds. The problem is that because of democracy, these people will keep voting for people like Trump or Hillary. Which is why I'd start the "purge" by introducing tests of political knowledge to voters. Those who would fail would still vote, but a) their vote wouldn't count or would make up a half/quarter of a vote of a person who'd pass, b) we wouldn't tell them it doesn't count because they might not like that, there would be riots and civil war and other bothers.
Examples. It's called examples. I know they're not all stupid, but truth be told you're more likely to find an idiot among those than among CEOs.
Also, you want to take reproductive rights from people, I tell you why it's not possible, and I'm the one being harsh? A bit hypocritical dude.
▼
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
Not at all but ok, take a trashman for example, I know some, they all have high education and all plus CEO tend to be the biggest assholes on earth theybmay not be stupid but yeah
What are YOU talking about? I proposed a standardized, anonymously graded system of testing people's knowledge in order to vote and you say it wouldn't work because I'm discriminating against smart garbagemen? SJW logic...
Sure, sure, you're nitpicking right now. But why do you have a problem with me putting McDonalds employees and plumbers as examples of uneducated people? I know they're not all stupid, in fact two of my high school classmates work there to earn some extra money while in college, but apart from students, you will hardly find an ambitious, intelligent person there. And as to what concerns plumbers, construction workers and other manual labor workers, those are jobs you don't need higher education for, therefore it's more likely to find uneducated people there. It's statistics and facts, what's wrong with that? People who need a bachelor degree for their job will obviously be statistically smarter and more educated than people who don't, that's a (trigger warning) fact.
@yukihaki
Wow. You put plumbers, a skilled trade that requires training and licensing in the same category as Macdonald's?
You don't need training to flip a burger when a chime tells you to.
What's next? You going to have a go at truck drivers? Skilled, trained professionals who have about 80,000 pounds of cargo under their control as they move it down the road. Training that never ends, I'll add... as the nature of cargo changes, different and increased levels of certification are required. Would you call the drivers who deliver fuel rods to nuclear reactors unskilled?
6
deleted
· 7 years ago
Wtf calm down, see that exageration is why we can't talk I said one damn little things and you act like I said Hitler was a good guy
Basically I'm ok with what ewqua said, just not generalize things damn
@yukihaki As I said, I was just giving examples that were based off statistics on education as a job requirement. But okay, we got that solved and agreed upon.
@smitty Now now, I never said these jobs don't require skill. They certainly do. But they don't require higher education. That's why plumbers, truck drivers, construction workers and what not obviously need training to know what they're doing, but their job mostly relies on manual labour, therefore they don't really need to know anything else beyond their line of work. I acknowledge that they need some training and even certificates to do their job, but a two months long training is a whole different thing than years of university education.
The idea of keeping "less intelligent" people from making political decisions, or even just making their vote count less, is plain fascism. You should not confuse IQ with education, and keep in mind that the question what defines intelligence is highly debatable. There is emotional intelligence and empathy which is NOT tested with most IQ tests even though they're essential skills. There is a large number of CEO who just come from the right family, so they have the right manners and the right formal education, not because they are more capable of anything than the average garbageman. How many really bright people are there on a board of directors? There are more and more so-called "underachievers" who make a willful decision not to follow a CEO career even though they have what it takes, just because they don't want to support a religious system where turnover and profit are the new gods and persons and individuality don't count shit. I bet your "test" would weed those out too.
Test on political *knowledge* = education, not intelligence. I didn't confuse IQ with education, you did. And just because I used stupid doesn't strictly mean I was talking about IQ, stupid is interchangeable with uneducated in common parlance.
I already said not every garbageman is dumb/uneducated, I thought people would also realize that I meant an alternative applies as well, meaning I think not every CEO is smart/educated. And yes, the test might weed these people out. Because the purpose of the test is to weed out people who don't know anything about politics. You may be a rocket scientist but know absolutely nothing about politics, therefore you shouldn't decide on politics. Simple. I don't know how to stress this out more but in my original comment I wrote KNOWLEDGE, so you telling me how my "IQ test" wouldn't work only proves you misread/misunderstood it and I'll gladly find common grounds with you once you understand that.
"stupid is interchangeable with uneducated in common parlance. " - Nope. Like totally not.
And who will decide what people must know in order to vote? Who will test it? Will there be a scale from 1-10? Your idea is fascism pure. The idea of democracy is to bear with the idiots. You have the right to call them idiots, but not the right to feel superior to them and decide on their behalf. I get why you want that, but its fascism, so its a no-go. It will end in extermination of lesser valued life, one way or the other.
Not a native speaker but I talked to enough native speakers to know that they use stupid as uneducated quite commonly. I don't know where you're from or if you're even a native speaker at all but I got this from experience.
Not fascism, meritocracy. What's wrong with the idea that only people who know what a certain field is about should be able to decide within that field? Nowadays you need a certificate for everything, like doing a certain job, driving, or even speaking a language ffs! But you don't need any proof of political knowledge to decide your country's future?
Now, I shall explain. The tests would be completely anonymous, every participant would have an assigned number not even they would know. It'd be assigned to their national identification number. The tests would either be graded by the country's college politology professors from multiple universities, which should eliminate most of the natural bias, or...
...or (and this is more likely as a couple of professor can't simply grade an entire nation's test) the tests would be made up by these professors, the right answers would be agreed upon (again by many of them to get rid of bias) and then graded via computer, so they'd have to be just multiple choice type of questions. Which professors would be making the tests would not be known to the political parties' members or to the public, and they would change every elections. Each university professor would be registered into a database in which they'd also record whether they're right or left leaning, and a computer would choose which professors would be making the test by a random choice, but consisting of 50% left and 50% right wing leaning professors.
Whew, that was tiring but this is my idea nonetheless. Any questions?
I asked because I thought you don't sound like someone who really enjoys democracy. Democracy has a major flaw, which you have realized: you have to take the stupid people into account. Problem is: you have to live with it or you will have to give up the idea of democracy. Whatever you are describing has nothing to do with democracy or an open society. There would be groups of people in the end to decide who's worthy and who isn't. And at the end of that road there are concentration camps and mass graves. Or maybe the Soylent Company.
It's funny because people from Eastern Europe hardly enjoy the idea of non-democracy since they were enslaved by communism, so your idea of them being anti-democracy is off.
Anyway, personally I'm 100% for freedom. I think it's more important than security because if you put security above freedom, you're gonna get controlled. But I feel like this case is something different - you keep saying how my idea is fascist and dictator-like and so on. And I understand how you can think that. But the thing is, freedom is perfect as long as you decide for yourself. And we have that now, and it's good. But as long as you're deciding for an entire country while knowing nothing about what your decisions even mean, we might have a bit of a problem...
... Which is why the system I "designed" would be 100% anonymous and therefore as unbiased as can be. The problem is, any idea can get exploited. I think you're exaggerating with the mass graves and so on, but it might happen, after all Nietzsche's superhuman concept was meant as a moral betterment of humanity but it was turned into racism and later genocide by the Nazis. So yes, anything can happen, but I still think that you should decide for others only when you know what you're doing. Or, if you're against testing and ignoring some percentage of votes which may to a lot of people seem like totalitarianism, I'd propose either political education courses for voters (which may have some issues as the originally unbiased courses might turn into propaganda), or limits to what politicians can spend on their campaigns, because the problem isn't uneducated people, the problem is politicians exploiting and swaying uneducated people on their side. Basically, get the money out of politics.
I'd also like to add that even with an originally democratic government things can turn into a dictatorship without any "controversial" proposals like mine is. Look at Erdogan, he keeps switching all the power to different political positions, depending which one he's in.
"It's funny because people from Eastern Europe hardly enjoy the idea of non-democracy since they were enslaved by communism, so your idea of them being anti-democracy is off. " - Oh really? Russia? Hungary? Croatia? Poland? From allegedly left totalitarianism to definitely right. You mentioned Turkey yourself: also a society with very little experience in free elections and democracy. Half the voters practically agreed with ending democracy. Cause, like in eastern europe, as well as in eastern germany, a _lot_ of people are disappointed with democracy cause it turned out not to be a magic wand that would fix all problems. In most of western europe, generations have experienced a relatively continuous change from post-war austerity to a nearly state of a general freedom of choice, and still not so many people want to loose that, even though the number is growing.
"But as long as you're deciding for an entire country while knowing nothing about what your decisions even mean, we might have a bit of a problem..."
.
Yeah, and not all problems can be solved. Groups interested in letting stupid people vote would fight your idea by all means. So your idea could not be executed without totalitarian measures, and pop goes democracy. Classic Catch 22. Sounds like a prequel to Minority Report or Blade Runner anyway.
.
I think you're a very smart person, but that you really haven't seen shit. Idiots rule idiots, and you can only make a tiny bit of difference locally. Anything above this level you need to be part of the game. Or a spoilt, rich narcissist with the attention span and mental abilities of a crack baby.
Yeah, those happened because people wanted a change from the extreme left, so they went extreme right. I don't agree with the move but I can understand the reason behind it.
My primary concern is to stop people from deciding things they're totally uninformed about, and to stop politicians from exploiting these people. So maybe I've been going about it the wrong way and only better education is the way to go. But we can both agree that money in politics and pre-elections propaganda do more harm than good, right?
Edison irradiated a man with X-rays, who then had to have his arms amputated and eventually died. Einstein had an affair. Many famous scientists weren't innocent. And Nikola Tesla actually said that women will be superior to men in the future and better educated.
And inside of every stupid man with chloroform, rags, zip ties, and garbage bags is an idiotic brain telling them to do terrible things to people that are human just like them.
You do realize that I am also a man, right? And that men can be stupid, right? A lot of men can be stupid. A lot of women can be stupid. But man and woman are one and the same, because we are all born from the same God, we all breathe the same air, drink the same water, and live on the exact same Earth.
We are all the same, and within our sameness we find differences. These differences are within our personalities, not our physical abilities and disabilities.
One man is not stronger than every female simply because he can pull a train with his bare arms.
One woman is not stronger than every male because she can endure childbirth.
Please, sir, realize that without women, men wouldn't exist. I'm not saying this from a feminist, but more from a biological standpoint. Men can't mate with each other. That's...that's not a thing we're good at. We can have sex with each other, but AFAIK men are still physically impossible to impregnate.
You do realize that that level of obnoxiousness and sarcasm is not necessary nor wanted here and that it is nigh impossible to get any entertainment from that.
Also, you want to take reproductive rights from people, I tell you why it's not possible, and I'm the one being harsh? A bit hypocritical dude.
Wow. You put plumbers, a skilled trade that requires training and licensing in the same category as Macdonald's?
You don't need training to flip a burger when a chime tells you to.
What's next? You going to have a go at truck drivers? Skilled, trained professionals who have about 80,000 pounds of cargo under their control as they move it down the road. Training that never ends, I'll add... as the nature of cargo changes, different and increased levels of certification are required. Would you call the drivers who deliver fuel rods to nuclear reactors unskilled?
Basically I'm ok with what ewqua said, just not generalize things damn
@smitty Now now, I never said these jobs don't require skill. They certainly do. But they don't require higher education. That's why plumbers, truck drivers, construction workers and what not obviously need training to know what they're doing, but their job mostly relies on manual labour, therefore they don't really need to know anything else beyond their line of work. I acknowledge that they need some training and even certificates to do their job, but a two months long training is a whole different thing than years of university education.
I already said not every garbageman is dumb/uneducated, I thought people would also realize that I meant an alternative applies as well, meaning I think not every CEO is smart/educated. And yes, the test might weed these people out. Because the purpose of the test is to weed out people who don't know anything about politics. You may be a rocket scientist but know absolutely nothing about politics, therefore you shouldn't decide on politics. Simple. I don't know how to stress this out more but in my original comment I wrote KNOWLEDGE, so you telling me how my "IQ test" wouldn't work only proves you misread/misunderstood it and I'll gladly find common grounds with you once you understand that.
And who will decide what people must know in order to vote? Who will test it? Will there be a scale from 1-10? Your idea is fascism pure. The idea of democracy is to bear with the idiots. You have the right to call them idiots, but not the right to feel superior to them and decide on their behalf. I get why you want that, but its fascism, so its a no-go. It will end in extermination of lesser valued life, one way or the other.
Not fascism, meritocracy. What's wrong with the idea that only people who know what a certain field is about should be able to decide within that field? Nowadays you need a certificate for everything, like doing a certain job, driving, or even speaking a language ffs! But you don't need any proof of political knowledge to decide your country's future?
Now, I shall explain. The tests would be completely anonymous, every participant would have an assigned number not even they would know. It'd be assigned to their national identification number. The tests would either be graded by the country's college politology professors from multiple universities, which should eliminate most of the natural bias, or...
Whew, that was tiring but this is my idea nonetheless. Any questions?
Anyway, personally I'm 100% for freedom. I think it's more important than security because if you put security above freedom, you're gonna get controlled. But I feel like this case is something different - you keep saying how my idea is fascist and dictator-like and so on. And I understand how you can think that. But the thing is, freedom is perfect as long as you decide for yourself. And we have that now, and it's good. But as long as you're deciding for an entire country while knowing nothing about what your decisions even mean, we might have a bit of a problem...
.
Yeah, and not all problems can be solved. Groups interested in letting stupid people vote would fight your idea by all means. So your idea could not be executed without totalitarian measures, and pop goes democracy. Classic Catch 22. Sounds like a prequel to Minority Report or Blade Runner anyway.
.
I think you're a very smart person, but that you really haven't seen shit. Idiots rule idiots, and you can only make a tiny bit of difference locally. Anything above this level you need to be part of the game. Or a spoilt, rich narcissist with the attention span and mental abilities of a crack baby.
My primary concern is to stop people from deciding things they're totally uninformed about, and to stop politicians from exploiting these people. So maybe I've been going about it the wrong way and only better education is the way to go. But we can both agree that money in politics and pre-elections propaganda do more harm than good, right?
He actually said women will lead in the future and be better educated than men.
Sounds pretty pro female to me...
Sauce: https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/07/10/nikola-tesla-when-woman-is-boss/
We are all the same, and within our sameness we find differences. These differences are within our personalities, not our physical abilities and disabilities.
One man is not stronger than every female simply because he can pull a train with his bare arms.
One woman is not stronger than every male because she can endure childbirth.
Please, sir, realize that without women, men wouldn't exist. I'm not saying this from a feminist, but more from a biological standpoint. Men can't mate with each other. That's...that's not a thing we're good at. We can have sex with each other, but AFAIK men are still physically impossible to impregnate.
Who am I?
What's happening?
Is this the real life?
Is it just fantasy?