zurew

I think it depends on the methods how a company develops its game. Because if we are talking about prototypes , then if the leak is at the first or second prototype, then it might give a false image how the end result will feel or look like.

@Leo GuraYeah, the hype is big. Probably the biggest reason why this leak wont have a strong negative effect on them , is because Rockstar is a strong brand , otherwise an upcoming game brand would have been probably fucked by a leak like this.

Yeah, but if its presented in poor quality, then its bad marketing, and it can have a reverse effect. First impression is important with everything.

What did they say, that was a clear lie? That lab leak theory is 100% not true, or that the lab leak theory might not be true? The first sentence could be said that its a lie, because there isn't any clear evidence on this topic, so to say anything with 100% confidence is dishonest. - So if they said the first sentence, then I agree that thats a lie and its dishonest.

If you think that my answer to that question is relevant to this discussion , then i am okay ending it here.

That will derail this thread even more, and its not relevant to this specific discussion. Lets focus back to the main topic and lets see your reasoning why you think, your system is structurally better to a democratic system. I already said, that I am willing to work with happiness for the sake of the argument.

@Kksd74628 No, we don't agree. It only seems that we agree, because you give me a question, where the only rational option is to choose happiness, but that doesn't mean, that hierarchically I hold happiness at the highest level, it only means that at that super isolated case, I would choose happiness. Also, what valuesystem I hold for myself could be slightly or vastly different from what I would want a society to have (because of numerous reasons). - But this part isn't relevant, for the sake of the argument, I can take your values for granted. Here is a relevant question for you: Structurally what benefits your system has compared to a democractic system. This is the only thing thats relevant here and of course the cons as well.

Calm it down, because your head is way too up in your ass right now. Would choose happiness, but right now we are way too fucking removed from reality and from politics. We never base our core values on the ground, that we will only live 1 minutes long. Thats distorts everything and that question makes long term thinking and planning and the big picture,system thinking worthless.

I understand your perspective, thats why I know the limitations and the tradeoff aswell, and I dont agree with it. I would still go with development, even if I would get less happiness at the end of the day.

@Kksd74628 Analyzing both of those choices from multiple angles, I would still choose development. If we would start to optimize everything for our development, we would eventually end up in a place, where everyone is developed asf and everyone is enlightened. That place and world sounds much better to me, because there isn't just happiness, but much more.

We already have like 6+ different threads about Andrew Tate, and we have discussed him extensively.

from 1:40 starts the relevant part.

I wouldn't optimize for happiness, If I would had to, I would optimize for development, and that would automatically lead to more love and happiness. Because if you optimize for happiness, there are scenarios, where you could create a happy society,where they are lacking development. When I say development I mean - spiritually, cognitively, physically, intellectually. Generally speaking I would agree with this statement, but to me it matters what the cost is, and what methods are used to achieve that increased happiness.

Yes, I agree, that hypothetically its possible to build a great society almost under any system, however I think when we talk about things like this, we should take into account things like morality as well. (Do we really believe that we only care about the results without giving any fuck about how we achieve those results and at what cost?)

If thats the case, then I think the closest system to your idea under democracy is liquid democracy. In that case we still don't totally abandon the voting part, but people can give their vote to people who they believe will make better decisions for whatever reasons. - in this case freedom is not totally lost.

Thats exactly how your system sounds to me. You even say that people don't even know what they want, so you would prefer if you could change their beliefs and ideology overall. That and all the other things that you talked about is pointing to a totalitarian system. I obviously see that there are many ways to impact society other than voting. But those impacts will still be there no matter if you abolish voting or not.

Structurally speaking we have more ways to solve this problem under a democractic system vs your totalitarian system where your whole structure actually calls for more exploitation and corruption because its totally centralized.

Thats a completely different issue that needs to be discussed. Also, your system doesn't solve this problem ,the brainwashing and the negative effects of social media will still stand unless your group of people will totally ban those - but then you will suffer other negative effects. Its not that as if this issue as easy as your try to frame it here.

No, but I don't think your alternative is any way better, giving the fact that in your system if shit gets real and things going downhill the only way to change that is if people start to get super violent, start to burn shit down and stuff like that. I could ask you the opposite: Do you really think, that we get the most optimal governing from people who have all the power in their hands and they can do whatever the fuck they want with that power without giving any fuck about people's best interest and without anyone holding them accountable for their actions? No, you ignored my point here. If a handful of people governing the whole country and they are making all the decisions without any outside input, in that case if those people start to become corrupt and start to exploit people, then in that system you have no way to try to break that system other than violence. In a democractic system if most of the people is fed up with a particular party's bullshit and a particular party's way of governing the country, then they can elect a different party.

This idea is compatible with a democratic system, you don't need to abolish voting to achieve these things. This is an assumption, and you can't know this with 100% certanty, because we haven't had political parties that would offer those possibilities and ideas , so you can't know if people would vote for them or not. They are not wrong, they have different preferences than you, and you want to make it look like ,that you have the right preference, when in reality all preferences are subjective. With your preference we could have a hypothetical world, where the happiness is maximized, but there is 0% free will. You obviously argue for a system where most people don't have any say, so me saying that you take away control and power from most people is correct and stands. You have an old totalitarian idea, where you assume that a group of people will do everything in favour of all people without misuing their power, without exploitation, where you have no way to check on these people, and you have no way to change the system without violence. So how do you make sure, that people who will be in power in your system, won't misuse their power, and won't exploit? Under a democratic system we have ways to have pressure on the system and we have ways to change the system, but in your world thats not possible.

What love means in practice will be very different for people, based on a thousand different things. The "what is good" and "what is good for us" parts are not clear cut and not the same for everyone and that will be a problem in your system , where no outside input (vote) will be on the table for people, who would be considered not holistic thinkers or uneducated people. Also what about people who value freedom the most? Your system completely goes against their 1st priority of value, and that will eventually manifest in outbursts and protests etc. So how is your system better, where a group of people make decisions for everyone, where that group of people have all the power in their hands, where they can misuse their power easily , because no one hold them accountable for their actions (under the assumption that they will only seek the best for all people), and where if you disagree with the system and if they exploit you, you and basically no one outside of that group have any say and need to obey to their order without any question or say.

How would you know why people vote for what? They could vote for personality every time or they could vote for that person because of the facts, but how would you determine which one is the case? What would this mean in practice though? We can have almost perfect calculations and equations about physics, but thats not the case about politics at all. There is no one perfect equation or way to do it, all political action requires a lot of contemplation, and rethinking of the methods and the creation of new methods and new ways to solve things etc. It would be too reductive to try to make a perfect equation, because the world is in constant change, people are changing our values are changing , our tools to solve problems are changing etcetc. Also, your statement assumes, that all of us have the same values, but thats also not the case. Sure everyone loves the word "freedom" and "healthcare for everyone" etc, but everyone has his/her own hierarchy of values, and when it comes to the distribution of goods and services and power, then all disagreements comes automatically . For some people freedom might be 1st in priority,but for others it might only be the 4th or 5th on list. This is not mutually exclusive with voting. You can have all these things and voting as well.

@D2sage You should have shared a link like this, and you would have proven your theory. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338563093_Migrants_and_Crime_in_Sweden_in_the_Twenty-First_Century