Democracy doesn’t work.

Democracies are essentially just oligarchies only less obvious. Democratic rulers lack any incentive to think long term.

I feel it would not be a terrible idea to have a government ruled by people who have reason to keep the country they are currently residing in strong after their rule. Or, Hell, to strengthen their country at all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Spatula, Shoggoth and Lemmingwise
Jesus Wept said:
Way to out yourself as an exceptional individual, exceptional individual
Click to expand...

You want to know why it's stupid? The tests are standardized, and the US tried this exact same thing 130 years ago and the same fucking thing is going to happen.

The US decided to not let retards vote so they opted to have "literacy tests" in order to get a ballot at the polls. Problem is, whatever political party that dominated the region would just spend money on teaching their voters how to pass the test, defeating the purpose.

Same shit will happen. Different political parties will just spend absurd amounts of money to make sure their pet voters can make it to the polls, just like they do now with "rock the vote" and bussing to polls. The difference here is that you will see an exponential explosion in difficulty of IQ tests because they have to keep the numbers the same, so you'll have an insane distribution like everyone who votes having a 130 IQ and everyone that doesn't having like a 27 IQ. It's a meme. Any restriction on voting outside of something expensive and tangible like owning land doesn't work and will never work. You can't even do the "service guarantees citizenship" meme because the ruling party will just reclassify what constitutes service and will change the requirements to get those jobs.

Your plan doesn't work. It never works. Representational government is a meme and has always been a meme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BR55, Agent Wet, Ruber and 2 others
Crippled Eagle said:
You want to know why it's stupid? The tests are standardized, and the US tried this exact same thing 130 years ago and the same fucking thing is going to happen.

The US decided to not let exceptional individuals vote so they opted to have "literacy tests" in order to get a ballot at the polls. Problem is, whatever political party that dominated the region would just spend money on teaching their voters how to pass the test, defeating the purpose.

Same shit will happen. Different political parties will just spend absurd amounts of money to make sure their pet voters can make it to the polls, just like they do now with "rock the vote" and bussing to polls. The difference here is that you will see an exponential explosion in difficulty of IQ tests because they have to keep the numbers the same, so you'll have an insane distribution like everyone who votes having a 130 IQ and everyone that doesn't having like a 27 IQ. It's a meme. Any restriction on voting outside of something expensive and tangible like owning land doesn't work and will never work. You can't even do the "service guarantees citizenship" meme because the ruling party will just reclassify what constitutes service and will change the requirements to get those jobs.

Your plan doesn't work. It never works. Representational government is a meme and has always been a meme.
Click to expand...
You're avoiding the fact that you outed yourself as being completely scientifically illiterate and unwilling to try to actually be rigorous in your thinking. I'm not going to reply to any more of your posts because we are just shitting up this thread at this point.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: Schinna, KimCoppolaAficionado, Babyspackle and 2 others
Jesus Wept said:
You're avoiding the fact that you outed yourself as being completely scientifically illiterate and unwilling to try to actually be rigorous in your thinking. I'm not going to reply to any more of your posts because we are just shitting up this thread at this point.
Click to expand...
Okay stupid. I guess you are simply too much of a dipshit to click hyperlinks. As I've stated multiple times I'm not trying to educate you, just call you a stupid fucking faggot.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: BR55, KimCoppolaAficionado, Babyspackle and 4 others
Like, Im kind of an idiot but if it didnt work, we wouldnt have it. Representative democracy is kind of stupid but it's probably the best we can get.

That said, the idea has become corrupted. That you can "buy" votes, or power, that isnt democracy. That's oligarchy.
Jesus Wept said:
I picked 130 because it's 2 standard deviations away, I'm not going to post my exact IQ because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. All I will say is, I would be okay with a society stratified by intelligence even if that meant there were people above me.
Click to expand...
To a degree it kind of is. The two party system (I assume we're talking about America, typical)is inherently anti-democracy. It puts disparate groups together under a common goal.
 
Crippled Eagle said:
You realize that we have too keep revising the tests because people keep scoring higher, right?
Click to expand...

The flynn effect has long since stopped and has even started to reverse. Besides, it was never an increase across each category of measured intelligence, but almost purely an increase in symbolic logic, so the effect was particularly strong for those tests that depend on things like raven matrices.

IQ isn't a perfect representation of g, but the intellectual attack on its validity is motivated by (pro mass-migration) politics and those that still cling to the tabula rasa idea of education being the primary predictor/initiator of high IQs, though that idea is completely destroyed by anyone that has looked at any of the twin studies that show that there is no factor stronger than genetics on IQ. Though genetics account for approximately 0.65 of the correlation, we don't have any other determinant that is even a third of that (education + social class + wealth together amount to a correlation of about 0.1)

----

As for the articles posted, the articles spout a lot of long disproven shit. If I read the actual refferenced study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312005843 then if I am understanding it accurately, the study makes a case for measuring multiple factors rather than a singular number. Of course IQ tests already did this, except they take a new approach which seems to argue in particular for a two factor measurement of g.

In essence it depends on whether you conceptualised the discussion as being specifically about IQ determining voting rights, or "our best measurement of intelligence". If you divide it into multiple factors, you could still create a limit of those who would and those who wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Note, I'm not arguing for such voting law, I've already argued against it and still stand by that. But this attack on IQ doesn't really attack the fundamental concept of hierarchy of intelligence as a limit for voting rights, since I think an obvious and perhaps generous interpreation would be about that.

If you'd subdivide fast runners into fast starters and fastfinishers, you could still calculate a limit on who would be fast enough and who wouldn't be for whatever purpose you might want to create a limit/barrier there.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Babyspackle
Nothing works. Just eat tacos and get laid, dude.

SkeetNYeet said:
The uneducated, apathetic, and single-issue voters are the biggest set backs and destruction of the system.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Apathetic voters are the cornerstone of this great country. Caring too much about politics makes you a fucking dogmatic r.etard- politicians are all people doing a job, they all lie and pander.

Apathy is a sign of a healthy democracy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Agent Wet, Positron, Shoggoth and 5 others
Y2K Baby said:
Wrong. Apathetic voters are the cornerstone of this great country. Caring too much about politics makes you a fucking dogmatic r.etard- politicians are all people doing a job, they all lie and pander.

Apathy is a sign of a healthy democracy.
Click to expand...
Not in Canada. It either means you won't vote, will vote what your friends vote, or just vote single-issue. I'd even say most cucknadians are apathetic and we're clearly not doing that great as far as democracy goes. But our country wasn't founded on the ability to vote so voting means something different up here.
 
SkeetNYeet said:
Not in Canada. It either means you won't vote, will vote what your friends vote, or just vote single-issue. I'd even say most cucknadians are apathetic and we're clearly not doing that great as far as democracy goes. But our country wasn't founded on the ability to vote so voting means something different up here.
Click to expand...
Sounds like we need a boomer-exchange program.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Slap47
I can only speak about my country, but, I'm going to say that we almost tried every political system in our history and they were always shit, some less shitty than others, but they were still bad.
Totalitarian monarchy? It went to shit when a royal family interbred so much that their offspring was sterile and caused a war. Here come the problems again in the 19th century and another succession war happened more than once.

So you wanna try parliamentarian monarchy in a first try? The guy in charge fucked off.
Late 19th century republican democracy? We've got 4 presidents in 11 months, we were so unstable that would
make the modern Italian Republic a symbol of stability.
Another take on parliamentarian monarchy? We ended up without our last colonies; with a two party model that would interchange power every 4 or 8 years without real change, they were almost similar to each other; the
Church gained a lot of power in that time too; and finally in the 1920s we ended up with a dictatorship.

So you want to try again a Republic? It only lasted 8 years until the end of the civil war. The republicans were so much divided, compared to the nationalists, because they were a mix of anarchists, communists, liberals and anti fascists who were so much happy to fight each other than the fascists. Also we had an anarchist communist state too during these years, and to anybody surprise, it was shit.

A fascist dictatorship? Until the late 50s we were pretty much like Venezuela, we were in the hunger years, everyone would not trade with us until the States decided that having a fascist in power was much better than a commie in board.
Parliamentarian monarchy once again? Congratulations, here are your shitty monarchy, exceptional politicians and a territorial policy that doesn't make sense. Enjoy your daily corruption cases.

With that, I think that ''democracy'' is the least worse of all. We had a lot of corruption back then but we couldn't talk about it. In the dictatorship during the mid century, there was a huge controversy surrounding stolen babies and a corruption case against some exports business, it was so big that our rules on international trade were changed.
We can at least talk about the shitty things that our politicians do every day, despite the censorship's law. That's why the secessionist movements grew up a lot during the last 40 years, no longer their languages were only called dialects and their groups dismissed. Sure it came with some fucked up shit like terrorist groups until the late 2000s. but at least they were able to talk about it (Although I think that they aren't going anywhere, these are groups filled with ADF kind of people right now) However, the shitty monarchs are still in charge, our political parties are just mafias that play with our economic system in order to maintain us as slaves, they only pass controversial laws just to give the media fuel to distract us from important issues, the media is also bought by rich cunts. Despite that we have a lot of info nothing will change, look at Epstein's murder, we know that the narrative they spew is false but they don't care about it because the status quo is here to stay.

And what's the future of democracy? It is pretty laughable that we call it like that. Massive censorship is growing every day, if you have a wrong opinion you are almost guaranteed that you will be a pariah, mass surveillance will make 1984 looks like a children's dystopia, and finally, the economy will always stay on the shitter for us because a multi-billion dollar company's interests are far more important than ours.
My 2 cents here.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Dumb
Reactions: Ravelord, BR55, Shoggoth and 4 others
The only political system (or economic system) that will remain successful forever is one that completely removes free will from those that live under it. Thats a big gay.
 
Lemmingwise said:
The flynn effect has long since stopped and has even started to reverse. Besides, it was never an increase across each category of measured intelligence, but almost purely an increase in symbolic logic, so the effect was particularly strong for those tests that depend on things like raven matrices.

IQ isn't a perfect representation of g, but the intellectual attack on its validity is motivated by (pro mass-migration) politics and those that still cling to the tabula rasa idea of education being the primary predictor/initiator of high IQs, though that idea is completely destroyed by anyone that has looked at any of the twin studies that show that there is no factor stronger than genetics on IQ. Though genetics account for approximately 0.65 of the correlation, we don't have any other determinant that is even a third of that (education + social class + wealth together amount to a correlation of about 0.1)

----

As for the articles posted, the articles spout a lot of long disproven shit. If I read the actual refferenced study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312005843 then if I am understanding it accurately, the study makes a case for measuring multiple factors rather than a singular number. Of course IQ tests already did this, except they take a new approach which seems to argue in particular for a two factor measurement of g.

In essence it depends on whether you conceptualised the discussion as being specifically about IQ determining voting rights, or "our best measurement of intelligence". If you divide it into multiple factors, you could still create a limit of those who would and those who wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Note, I'm not arguing for such voting law, I've already argued against it and still stand by that. But this attack on IQ doesn't really attack the fundamental concept of hierarchy of intelligence as a limit for voting rights, since I think an obvious and perhaps generous interpreation would be about that.

If you'd subdivide fast runners into fast starters and fastfinishers, you could still calculate a limit on who would be fast enough and who wouldn't be for whatever purpose you might want to create a limit/barrier there.
Click to expand...
This study was in kids, but it found that while verbal IQs stabilized around 4th grade, non-verbal remained highly variable from year to year. I couldn't find a similar study for adults, but lack of evidence is not proof, and it's still very unclear whether IQ remains stable over a lifetime. Also, keep in mind that even if IQ scores remain constant, the raw scores consistently go up with age (and are subsequently adjusted to a standardized scale); so that it is very likely that a middle aged person of low-medium IQ can be more intelligent than a young person with high IQ. IQ also doesn't account for experience or knowledge (I would trust a low-IQ economist more than a high-IQ layman, for instance, in economic policy [assuming the education system is unbiased which is false in reality but the point stands]).
Also, .65 correlation with genetics means that slightly over 36% of the variation in IQ between people is due to genetics, I wouldn't say that's an amazing correlation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back