They REALLY don't want to lose that poll! Get 'em!
>He allowed his daughter to marry one. The same one who is one of his top advisers. Take the blinders off
I don't think you understood me. I said you're retarded.
>What if we address it through meritocratic voting?
Bingo. No other attribute should be important other than how correct you've been in the past about predicting future outcomes.
JW picked up on the photo of the 10/12 year old and the tranny!
Keep your eyes out for this. It exists. It is called sapiocracy. The site went down a while ago but it still exist. There's a PDF describing it.
>I don't know if I would go that far.
I would. There are good reasons for it.
>Everything that can be quantified is important.
>Even gender.
Negative. Innate morality in humans drives the moral issues. Correctness drives everything else.
Allowing any other attribute only creates a situation where people have to argue about the importance level of each attribute, which, in itself, opens up the whole system to corruption. Without this distinction, then everything relevant is decided through the system. This is non-corruptible (through this mechanism.)
>i'm skeptical of anything that gives itself a label, but I'll dig on it after this bread
I agree, but it provides a way to find it. That is the only reason for the label.
The bigger issues with this are constructing a hardware/software platform on which to build the system. The entire technology industry is fucked.
I will assert that I believe it is technically possible to build such a system, but extreme care must be taken on every part of the system to ensure there is no chance of corruption. This is more difficult than what the founding fathers did with the Constitution as it attempts to build a system which is more powerful at stopping corruption than the species itself is of becoming corrupted. Digital technology makes that jump possible.
I'll dig up the PDF and post it at some point in the future. It isn't specifically a topic to be discussed here, but after Q's mission is more apparent to the population, this kind of thing should be a subject of discourse.
This is not it. https://www.sapiocracy.com. The website went down some months ago.
Wow….ShareBlue is hitting that poll HARD. We need to flip it back again.
>how is it different from china social credit model??
China's social credit module is corruptible all over the place. It is basically 1984 on steroids. Sapiocracy is basically an open specification / open source system that the population cooperatively runs that is incredibly self-checking and self-testing. It encourages multiple implementations of everything and one-time pad encryption between nodes in order to prevent all forms of 3rd party sniffing. It would rely on a highly redundant network of machines and be outside of the control of any one faction.
In other words, it would be a bitch to get up and running, but once up and running (and stable), you could seal it and it would be the will of the people, multiplied by the correctness of each person. If you are correct about future predictions a lot, you get more power. If you are incorrect (stupid or corrupt), you lose power. Incredible simple in concept.
I've talked to people about it in the past and I've never heard anyone wage a credible reason why it wasn't airtight.
I'll dig up the PDF. I stored it offline. When I find it, I'll post it here.
>Technology allows us to escape the cycles that [they] put us in?
>Double edged sword though.
I agree completely. I've been in the tech industry all my life (not young) and I assure you I'm as careful as anyone on the planet. I can't find holes in the idea. Nobody else I showed it to could either.
I just tried to find a copy of the PDF online. Either nobody posted it outside of sapiocracy.com or it has been scrubbed (which wouldn't surprise me.)
>Innate morality is genetic and gender dependent.
Correct, but you need a mechanism to moderate that debate and the system sapiocracy describes is the best way to have that debate because it requires results.