******Official politics thread ******

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh and most the work done when considered from a societal macro view is inefficent, useless, redundant, or even entirely pointless and self-perpetuationg

This is the one reason all social welfare and foreign aid programs ought be gutted while organizations like plane parenthood are subsidized alongside other active management of populations.

Sad as it may be, most people are useless and we have neither the time. Or resources to continue to invest in failure :c If we wish to survive as a species we must escape this wet rock before we are wholly annihilated any solar flare, super volcano, asteroid or bovine flatulence.

[fash]

Anyone who circulates a document that suggests there are any differences between ethnic groups or genders is a complete retard.

There are too many white men in powerful positions.

There are too many jews in powerful positions too.

We need to diversify these positions to correct this injustice.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by fash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyone who circulates a document that suggests there are any differences between ethnic groups or genders is a complete retard.

There are too many white men in upper management positions.

There are too many jews in upper management too.

We need more diversify to correct these mistakes.

solid dunks

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is the one reason all social welfare and foreign aid programs ought be gutted while organizations like plane parenthood are subsidized alongside other active management of populations.

Sad as it may be, most people are useless and we have neither the time. Or resources to continue to invest in failure :c If we wish to survive as a species we must escape this wet rock before we are wholly annihilated any solar flare, super volcano, asteroid or bovine flatulence.

do you take resource consumption into consideration in your extermination proposal?

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

do you take resource consumption into consideration in your extermination proposal?

Well asking people to cut down on private jet usage is certainly out of the question!

Edit: I just want to add on a serious note -- I don't think there is any evidence rich people as a group are more useful or better for society. Obviously there is a higher rate of that than street bums...its just a statistical tendency that doesn't tell you a lot about the world though. The 1% are virtually unstudied and what we do know about their impact on the world is mostly negative.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

do you take resource consumption into consideration in your extermination proposal?

Gotta phrase that with consumer spending potential.

[Rader]

Originally Posted by fash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyone who circulates a document that suggests there are any differences between ethnic groups or genders is a complete retard.

There are too many white men in powerful positions.

There are too many jews in powerful positions too.

We need to diversify these positions to correct this injustice.

Sieg Hiel! I totally get what you mean by "diversify" <wink>

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

do you take resource consumption into consideration in your extermination proposal?

No, because it is immaterial ^^ Prudent population control would assess individuals on the fitness and desirability of their person alone. and THEN, once we had a healthy population we could collectively invest in it in a very substantial way :3

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well asking people to cut down on private jet usage is certainly out of the question!

Edit: I just want to add on a serious note -- I don't think there is any evidence rich people as a group are more useful or better for society. Obviously there is a higher rate of that than street bums...its just a statistical tendency that doesn't tell you a lot about the world though. The 1% are virtually unstudied and what we do know about their impact on the world is mostly negative.

I never said wealth would exempt individuals from evaluation that is just something you assumed ^^ To dispel any ambiguity though, no, wealth would not exempt individuals. The reason I suggest to cease the subsidy of failure is because we already have more people than we need or can adequately manage and those at the bottom produce far more of themselves (on average) than those at the top so even if we we seized all of the wealth of those at the top we would very quickly find ourselves short on resources as those at the bottom exploded. sure, we could invest resources in correcting undesirable behaviors contributing to that outcome, but we already have a sizable population who do not require that investment.

Given the time and resources required to assess individual fitness, it is most sensible to focus efforts on those with proven success. It may well be that we find fit specimens might eventually succeed in lifting themselves from a state of failure, but it is unlikely and therefore an inefficient use of resources. for that reason alone, subsidy should end. then, all could be evaluated for desirable traits most likely to benefit society. some sort of threshold would be established and those above, would get contribute directly to the advancement of man. those below would get to do so indirectly by graciously relieving society of their burden. it doesn't matter whether they live on a trust fund or peanuts.

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Gotta phrase that with consumer spending potential.

au contraire mon amis, their economic contribution is of no more concern than their resource consumption.



of course we need robots for all this, or someone verrrry smart.




*and trustworthy too.

[Pokesan]

define fitness. it better not be a programming thing.

i think you only bring this to #disrupt the conversation

[Rader]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, because it is immaterial ^^ Prudent population control would assess individuals on the fitness and desirability of their person alone. and THEN, once we had a healthy population we could collectively invest in it in a very substantial way :3



I never said wealth would exempt individuals from evaluation that is just something you assumed ^^ To dispel any ambiguity though, no, wealth would not exempt individuals. The reason I suggest to cease the subsidy of failure is because we already have more people than we need or can adequately manage and those at the bottom produce far more of themselves (on average) than those at the top so even if we we seized all of the wealth of those at the top we would very quickly find ourselves short on resources as those at the bottom exploded. sure, we could invest resources in correcting undesirable behaviors contributing to that outcome, but we already have a sizable population who do not require that investment.

Given the time and resources required to assess individual fitness, it is most sensible to focus efforts on those with proven success. It may well be that we find fit specimens might eventually succeed in lifting themselves from a state of failure, but it is unlikely and therefore an inefficient use of resources. for that reason alone, subsidy should end. then, all could be evaluated for desirable traits most likely to benefit society. some sort of threshold would be established and those above, would get contribute directly to the advancement of man. those below would get to do so indirectly by graciously relieving society of their burden. it doesn't matter whether they live on a trust fund or peanuts.



au contraire mon amis, their economic contribution is of no more concern than their resource consumption.



of course we need robots for all this, or someone verrrry smart.




*and trustworthy too.

All this bitching will soon be moot. Androids will deliver prime rib dinners to our front door and satisfy us sexually and inject us with morphine, we won't give a shit if it is President Obama or Trump or Carrot Top.