you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This isn't feasible in a modern technological society. Community is not needed due to the complexity, rationalisation etc of society so something needs to fill the role that community did.

People are fat, adulterous etc because there's no social consequence for anti-social or self destructive behaviours. Technology made it so social pressure no longer exists, so it is the responsibility of the state to use technology to reintroduce social guidelines and barriers. Without the reintroduction of normalcy through technological methods people will continue acting in anti-social, self destructive etc ways and the the only other alternative is technological decomplexification which is a pipedream.

It's either a pro-social social credit system, along with attempting to reintroduce community into people's lives through city planning and such. Or people continue being shitty and get worse as technique progresses.

[–]Dippy_Dipshizzle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Although I think I understand where you are coming from, it is quite clear that you haven't thought it through.

The point is: who gets to set the "social credit" guidelines. If everyone agreed on the same values, then it might work. That will never be the case! Instead, a simple majority would be able dictate its morals onto the rest, with zero protection for minorities. Not my understanding of a vibrant democracy. The only "social credit" system that works is having a set of laws (as we do) and that already has many issues. To broaden that to include general behaviour is the ultimate dystopia which I will fight against in any way I can.