China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains

Post by adventured » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 6:57 PM UTC

macrael wrote: post #196

adventured wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The country you're countering about, China, executes people in stadiums before cheering crowds instead of going the felony route when it comes to drug policy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/thousands-chin... Meanwhile, back in the US, we've actually begun to recognize our mistake as a culture. Thus eight states have legalized marijuana, and another dozen will go that way soon. Decriminalization of drug…

From the first link, China sentenced 10 people in front of a crowd but they were executed out of sight. Not that this fully detracts from your point but I appreciate the clarity.

Post by sambe » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 6:58 PM UTC

_bxg1 wrote: post #223

jdietrich wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider the restrictions that US law places on convicted felons. Millions of Americans have been stripped of constitutional rights, often for infractions as minor as stealing a coat or possessing half an ounce of marijuana. Felons often face considerable difficulties in finding employment and housing. "Once untrustworthy, always restricted" is a practical reality in the US.

Not to imply that the American system is good, but at least here the things that can get you into that status are discrete, well-defined actions. With the "social credit system" things are much more fluid and subjective, so there's going to be a much greater culture of fear surrounding it. Granted, we have the same problems with our own credit system, but at least ours only applies to and is affected by finances. The…

Post by johan_larson » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 6:58 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #211

nkrisc wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference if the effect is the same?

There are landlords who will rent to felons and employers who will hire them. It's not a blanket ban.

Post by harlanji » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:00 PM UTC

kiteracer wrote: post #152

awakeasleep wrote: post #7

To me the principle of “once untrustworthy, always restricted” sounds like the beginning of a new caste system. Everyone's children are going to make mistakes. The wealthy are going to be able to cover up their children's mistakes, the poor are going to be put on 'the list' and become 'restricted.' The restrictions will grow, and eventually you'll have a new group of 'untouchables'

You can extend this metaphor to employment and job performance as well, as explored by Marshall Brain in his short story "Manna" [0]: > You can imagine what would happen. Manna fires you because you don't show up for work a couple times. Now you try to go get a job somewhere else. No other Manna system is going to hire you. There had always been an implicit threat in the American economy -- "if you do not have a job,…

Post by monocasa » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:00 PM UTC

Reedx wrote: post #183

heedlessly2 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because if black people get accused of a crime, most people believe they actually committed it. If an upper-middle class blonde hair, blue eyed woman gets accused of a crime, a higher degree of people would at least give her the benefit of the doubt

> If an upper-middle class blonde hair, blue eyed woman gets accused of a crime, a higher degree of people would at least give her the benefit of the doubt Which would make sense, no? They're playing the odds. It's exceedingly rare for any upper-middle class woman to commit a crime. So to be surprised by that is understandable. Take color and class out of it, you need only compare "man accused of crime" vs "woman acc…