By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave said:

This made me laugh a whole lot more than it should have. 



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
vivster said:
EricHiggin said:

That's one side of the coin. The Rep outlook is more along the lines of the movie itself. Every side has their own viewpoint and to each their own.

Different viewpoints are great and all but catering to a tiny minority is a bad viewpoint to have in a democracy.

The smartest/most efficient of us, are a tiny minority. I'd think catering to them wouldn't be the worst idea. Give them more resources and keep them more free of politics, within reason of course. The things that the majority of that minority typically end up doing for everyone are worth it.

2 Points.

1. Efficiency is always at the cost of human lives. Humans aren't built for efficiency and top efficiency will always cost lives. That's why humanity only works with a bunch of compromises. Like democracy, which is one of the least efficient forms of government, because it's just a compromise.

2. There is no evidence in the last 20000 years to support that the elites will do anything to properly advance or even handle humanity. In fact there is plenty of evidence against it, especially in the US. A meritocracy does not work and will not ever work. At least not if your goal is to bring a good life to a majority of people.

We already know that the Republicans have no interest to better the lives of the majority.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
EricHiggin said:

The smartest/most efficient of us, are a tiny minority. I'd think catering to them wouldn't be the worst idea. Give them more resources and keep them more free of politics, within reason of course. The things that the majority of that minority typically end up doing for everyone are worth it.

2 Points.

1. Efficiency is always at the cost of human lives. Humans aren't built for efficiency and top efficiency will always cost lives. That's why humanity only works with a bunch of compromises. Like democracy, which is one of the least efficient forms of government, because it's just a compromise.

2. There is no evidence in the last 20000 years to support that the elites will do anything to properly advance or even handle humanity. In fact there is plenty of evidence against it, especially in the US. A meritocracy does not work and will not ever work. At least not if your goal is to bring a good life to a majority of people.

We already know that the Republicans have no interest to better the lives of the majority.

The massive human population growth in the last century certainly isn't due to lack of efficiency. Too much efficiency is a problem, like I mentioned, it must be within reason and kept in check.

The elites have been in charge for quite some time. Over just the last century, life hasn't gotten better for people in general, not to mention the poorest of people? This is on top of massive population growth. I'm not saying it's perfect, but your reflection and outlook is extremely bleak compared to what's occurred.

Maybe better posed, what if both have little interest, just one is better at hiding it physically and verbally?



vivster said:
EricHiggin said:

The smartest/most efficient of us, are a tiny minority. I'd think catering to them wouldn't be the worst idea. Give them more resources and keep them more free of politics, within reason of course. The things that the majority of that minority typically end up doing for everyone are worth it.

2 Points.

1. Efficiency is always at the cost of human lives. Humans aren't built for efficiency and top efficiency will always cost lives. That's why humanity only works with a bunch of compromises. Like democracy, which is one of the least efficient forms of government, because it's just a compromise.

2. There is no evidence in the last 20000 years to support that the elites will do anything to properly advance or even handle humanity. In fact there is plenty of evidence against it, especially in the US. A meritocracy does not work and will not ever work. At least not if your goal is to bring a good life to a majority of people.

We already know that the Republicans have no interest to better the lives of the majority.

1. Not always. Compare European and American work ethic. Europeans are focused on getting shit done and going home when it's time to clock out. Americans put in 60+ hour weeks to look busy. Europeans get the same amount done in less time, they're more efficient and they also have more free time (and therefore better lives) as a result.

That's also an issue with hourly pay. You're typically paid on quantity of work, rather than quality.

2. A meritocracy absolutely does work. Western Europe is probably the most meritocratic place in the world and it also has the highest living standards and happiest people in the world. Not a coincidence.

Plus I'd argue that to be meritocratic you need a number of "socialist" policies in order to give everybody the opportunity to prove their worth. Those opportunities (and the fact there would be socialist policies in place even for people who couldn't make the most of them for whatever reason) would give a better life to the majority of people.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

EricHiggin said:
vivster said:
EricHiggin said:

The smartest/most efficient of us, are a tiny minority. I'd think catering to them wouldn't be the worst idea. Give them more resources and keep them more free of politics, within reason of course. The things that the majority of that minority typically end up doing for everyone are worth it.

2 Points.

1. Efficiency is always at the cost of human lives. Humans aren't built for efficiency and top efficiency will always cost lives. That's why humanity only works with a bunch of compromises. Like democracy, which is one of the least efficient forms of government, because it's just a compromise.

2. There is no evidence in the last 20000 years to support that the elites will do anything to properly advance or even handle humanity. In fact there is plenty of evidence against it, especially in the US. A meritocracy does not work and will not ever work. At least not if your goal is to bring a good life to a majority of people.

We already know that the Republicans have no interest to better the lives of the majority.

The massive human population growth in the last century certainly isn't due to lack of efficiency. Too much efficiency is a problem, like I mentioned, it must be within reason and kept in check.

The elites have been in charge for quite some time. Over just the last century, life hasn't gotten better for people in general, not to mention the poorest of people? This is on top of massive population growth. I'm not saying it's perfect, but your reflection and outlook is extremely bleak compared to what's occurred.

Maybe better posed, what if both have little interest, just one is better at hiding it physically and verbally?

You mean, the last century in which the "elites" have been the least powerful they've ever been throughout human history?



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:
EricHiggin said:

The smartest/most efficient of us, are a tiny minority. I'd think catering to them wouldn't be the worst idea. Give them more resources and keep them more free of politics, within reason of course. The things that the majority of that minority typically end up doing for everyone are worth it.

2 Points.

1. Efficiency is always at the cost of human lives. Humans aren't built for efficiency and top efficiency will always cost lives. That's why humanity only works with a bunch of compromises. Like democracy, which is one of the least efficient forms of government, because it's just a compromise.

2. There is no evidence in the last 20000 years to support that the elites will do anything to properly advance or even handle humanity. In fact there is plenty of evidence against it, especially in the US. A meritocracy does not work and will not ever work. At least not if your goal is to bring a good life to a majority of people.

We already know that the Republicans have no interest to better the lives of the majority.

1. Not always. Compare European and American work ethic. Europeans are focused on getting shit done and going home when it's time to clock out. Americans put in 60+ hour weeks to look busy. Europeans get the same amount done in less time, they're more efficient and they also have more free time (and therefore better lives) as a result.

That's also an issue with hourly pay. You're typically paid on quantity of work, rather than quality.

2. A meritocracy absolutely does work. Western Europe is probably the most meritocratic place in the world and it also has the highest living standards and happiest people in the world. Not a coincidence.

Plus I'd argue that to be meritocratic you need a number of "socialist" policies in order to give everybody the opportunity to prove their worth. Those opportunities (and the fact there would be socialist policies in place even for people who couldn't make the most of them for whatever reason) would give a better life to the majority of people.

1. Those are some really dangerous stereotypes. What you describe has nothing to do with work ethics. Getting more done in fewer hours is not a sign of great ethics but a symptom of having to work fewer hours. There are countless studies proving that work efficiency increases with fewer work hours. Europeans have strong worker protection and lots of vacation and sick times. They are also required by law to work less. They get more done in fewer hours because they have to work fewer hours and as such have the ability and motivation to work efficiently.

US workers do not have that luxury. They are mostly paid by the hour. They do not have a social safety net, which increases stress and anxiety. So they naturally benefit from working less efficiently to not kill themselves and to get more money. They're also overall less educated, so some jobs that require good thinkers or skilled workers have to be done by lesser skilled workers. Also not their fault, but a mere symptom.

Don't forget that US citizens are also just humans and given the same circumstances they will perform just as well as European humans. Believing anything else borders on racism.

2. I'd argue a social safety net and a meritocracy do not mix. Unless that safety net is based on merit, whit it is absolutely not in Europe. I reject that western Europe operates in a meritocracy. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much incompetence among the elites.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
Ka-pi96 said:

1. Not always. Compare European and American work ethic. Europeans are focused on getting shit done and going home when it's time to clock out. Americans put in 60+ hour weeks to look busy. Europeans get the same amount done in less time, they're more efficient and they also have more free time (and therefore better lives) as a result.

That's also an issue with hourly pay. You're typically paid on quantity of work, rather than quality.

2. A meritocracy absolutely does work. Western Europe is probably the most meritocratic place in the world and it also has the highest living standards and happiest people in the world. Not a coincidence.

Plus I'd argue that to be meritocratic you need a number of "socialist" policies in order to give everybody the opportunity to prove their worth. Those opportunities (and the fact there would be socialist policies in place even for people who couldn't make the most of them for whatever reason) would give a better life to the majority of people.

1. Those are some really dangerous stereotypes. What you describe has nothing to do with work ethics. Getting more done in fewer hours is not a sign of great ethics but a symptom of having to work fewer hours. There are countless studies proving that work efficiency increases with fewer work hours. Europeans have strong worker protection and lots of vacation and sick times. They are also required by law to work less. They get more done in fewer hours because they have to work fewer hours and as such have the ability and motivation to work efficiently.

US workers do not have that luxury. They are mostly paid by the hour. They do not have a social safety net, which increases stress and anxiety. So they naturally benefit from working less efficiently to not kill themselves and to get more money. They're also overall less educated, so some jobs that require good thinkers or skilled workers have to be done by lesser skilled workers. Also not their fault, but a mere symptom.

Don't forget that US citizens are also just humans and given the same circumstances they will perform just as well as European humans. Believing anything else borders on racism.

2. I'd argue a social safety net and a meritocracy do not mix. Unless that safety net is based on merit, whit it is absolutely not in Europe. I reject that western Europe operates in a meritocracy. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much incompetence among the elites.

1. Stereotypes they may be, but that doesn't meant they're not true. I'm not so sure about the American one (I don't know many Americans), but the European one fits me to a tee.

Wouldn't your explanation be the opposite though? ie. getting less done in the same hours due to having to work more hours? For me at least I'd get more done in less hours because I want to work less hours, rather than because I have to.

It's also definitely not racism. I'm not talking race here. I'm talking culture/education. You yourself just said different people perform the same in the same circumstances (ie. the social and educational circumstances).

2. A social safety net is pretty much required for a meritocracy to some extent. How would people from poorer backgrounds be able to prove their worth to society without one? And if you're not giving everybody the chance to prove themselves you're not really a meritocracy. You could argue that it's no longer needed after people reach adulthood/finish education, but then the idea of no second chances is kind of anti-meritocratic too, is it not? Just saying "if you're not good enough now, you'll never be good enough" is not only harsh, but also in many cases flat out wrong.

Western Europe isn't a meritocracy, no. But it's closer to it than anywhere else on the planet. It's the place where you're least disadvantaged by who your parents are and your upbringing and where you have the most chance to succeed based on your own merits.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

It's kinda sad when Republicans claim that Democrats want to rule only via courts when all the GOP has been doing is packing courts with their judges. The 4 years Trump was president is gonna damage the country for decades. All because the US can't properly democracy.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:

It's kinda sad when Republicans claim that Democrats want to rule only via courts when all the GOP has been doing is packing courts with their judges. The 4 years Trump was president is gonna damage the country for decades. All because the US can't properly democracy.

Yet wants to export democracy for decades now...



Bofferbrauer2 said:
vivster said:

It's kinda sad when Republicans claim that Democrats want to rule only via courts when all the GOP has been doing is packing courts with their judges. The 4 years Trump was president is gonna damage the country for decades. All because the US can't properly democracy.

Yet wants to export democracy for decades now...

It actually seems that they have been successful with that as well. The problem is that they're not bringing actual democracy and only their brand of democracy, which as we know, is not democracy at all. Looks like the countries the US invaded are now just as bad or worse off than the US.

Remember when the US invaded Germany to bring us democracy? Now we have almost a million COVID cases. Coincidence? I think not.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.