71–80 of 271 posts
Isn't this bad from an economic perspective? I thought the gov't wanted to encourage spending and increase the velocity of their money. This directly hinders that.
Indirectly it could increase spending as they are preventing people from leaving and spending their money overseas
Well here in the US we have an actual credit system in place. And since basic necessities are often dependent on credit rating (employment; housing purchaes ; rentals; vehicle financing/lease) it’s pretty dystopian. Not to mention for nearly 20 years now we have had secret no fly lists (no due process to get on or off) and even secret kill lists (no due process), I think it’s just another way to skin the cat, and may…
I don’t think there is much equivalency here. The credit system is a pain, but it is also very simple to have good credit. Anyone, even someone with little money can have good credit. Even if you have medical debt you can maintain your credit rating. People may not know how to do it, but it isn’t too hard. The privacy aspects of it suck, but it just isn’t that dystopian and it’s usage is relatively narrow in society.…
And I can't help thinking that while it may be efficient at forcing people to not behave like a jerk, it will also have the same effect than for a XVIII century village: a high degree of conformism, that supresses any evolution or innovation. It may be the desired effect by the current rulers, preventing any political challenge. But I think it will also lead to an inexorable decline of the Chinese society.
One of the problems is that this is yet another system that can be corrupted. The rich will be able to buy themselves a high social credit rating, while the poor suffer.
And how is this different from any society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think there is much equivalency here. The credit system is a pain, but it is also very simple to have good credit. Anyone, even someone with little money can have good credit. Even if you have medical debt you can maintain your credit rating. People may not know how to do it, but it isn’t too hard. The privacy aspects of it suck, but it just isn’t that dystopian and it’s usage is relatively narrow in society.…
The US does kill its citizens. There's a few terrorists who were US citizens when they were killed by drone strikes. https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-kil...
This is obviously going to be an unpopular sentiment, but I am somewhat excited to observe the results, and I'm glad this is happening during my time on Earth. Yes, it is a horrible thought, but in many ways inevitable: if the tech exists, it will be used for both good and evil. Better that other societies can see the outcome sooner rather than later.
-- Walter Benjamin
So we're repeating the Nazis now, gladly, because that's easier than learning from those who made all that effort, saw and went through so much atrocities and suffering, to to learn from that, and to relay that to us, to impress the importance of it on us? I'm so not onboard with that.
> We don't know a perfected totalitarian power structure, because it would require the control of the whole planet. But we know enough about the the still preliminary experiments of total organization to realize that the very well possible perfection of this apparatus would get rid of human agency in the sense as we know it.
-- Hannah Arendt
You (like many) are kinda saying yes, it's unpopular and horrible, but "it would happen anyway". Notice how this is exactly the logic of totalitarianism, an abdication of personal responsibility. Saying "I won't fight it because it will happen anyway" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> [The method of infallible prediction] is foolproof only after the movements have seized power. Then all debate about the truth or falsity of a totalitarian dictator’s prediction is as weird as arguing with a potential murderer about whether his future victim is dead or alive – since by killing the person in question the murderer can promptly provide proof of the correctness of his statement. The only valid argument under such conditions is promptly to rescue the person whose death is predicted. Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it. The assertion that the Moscow subway is the only one in the world is a lie only so long as the Bolsheviks have not the power to destroy all the others. In other words, the method of infallible prediction, more than any other totalitarian propaganda device, betrays its ultimate goal of world conquest, since only in a world completely under his control could the totalitarian ruler possibly realize all his lies and make true all his prophecies.
-- Hannah Arendt, both quotes from "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
And by the time you find out there's nothing to be glad about because it's just a spiral of control and fear and anti-intellectualism, with abusers and sadists having free pick of the litter, that won't matter anymore. There will be no allies to defeat the Nazis from the outside this time. There might be no "after".
As for societies seeing "outcomes", as you observe "results" (these are people we're talking about here), keep in mind how much of what the Nazis did didn't go to plan. The death camps were supposed to be completely removed from the face of the Earth, just like many villages they razed. If Hitler hadn't started a war, or had limited it, the world still wouldn't know. It's not like we know everything that's going on in China, by a long, long shot. Just like we don't know about the Abu Ghraibs about which we never heard, and so on.
To play with fire to learn about fire, let's leave that in the early 20th century, I beg of you. We have books and other documentation.
The way I understand this social credit system, it is trying to emulate at a scale of a one billion population the social control you had in a small XVIII century village. Basically what forces you to behave is not so much the law than the fear of contempt from your peers, which could impact every aspect of your life. And I can't help thinking that while it may be efficient at forcing people to not behave like a jerk…
Why do people still live there (apart from those who cannot move)?
There are very few absolute wrongs in the world and it's not clear that this would be one of them.
I think the biggest problem with this is that citizens that want to speak out about the government will now be more easily blackballed. So now the government can more easily repress a revolution. I suspect this means that the Communist Party of China will most likely remain in power for a lot longer than their natural shelf-life. When this party makes mistakes and misjudgments, what would happen now? The people will…
Well here in the US we have an actual credit system in place. And since basic necessities are often dependent on credit rating (employment; housing purchaes ; rentals; vehicle financing/lease) it’s pretty dystopian. Not to mention for nearly 20 years now we have had secret no fly lists (no due process to get on or off) and even secret kill lists (no due process), I think it’s just another way to skin the cat, and may…
I don’t think there is much equivalency here. The credit system is a pain, but it is also very simple to have good credit. Anyone, even someone with little money can have good credit. Even if you have medical debt you can maintain your credit rating. People may not know how to do it, but it isn’t too hard. The privacy aspects of it suck, but it just isn’t that dystopian and it’s usage is relatively narrow in society.…
Or so they say. In any case, it's a single country deciding, and that any some ad hoc committee, without a public due process, and targeting people residing on sovereign states.
And of course often killing 10-20 nearby people as well, up to 130 for a strike on a wedding:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security/death-toll...