Why they would not, after all they are managers of some system, tho not rarely driven by advices whether by experts or friends and/or "influencers" from behind the scenes hierarchy, still having eTOS and eReferendum chance for extra through constant debate acquired advices and eventually on obligatory or consultative e-referendums checking the acceptance of some crucial change by the citizens can and will result in balance if not else eg. the current rioting in France could had have been cushioned if there was such exhaust valves aside that truthful pro and against opinions will be smoothed out by various thematic eforum debate, just how ridiculous is how the same is poured now on the soc.nets (choked by idealess triviality usually) where mids eg. topic like this many will drop with voyeurism or masks solely due to the personal public profile where the ego if not else is restraining many to start thinking out of the box or throwing them in wrong defense or agitprop mode!, sadly but mids all that lost in space hood alike vibe the most creative social or political aware citizens will withdraw and leave the podium on some extrovert attention grabbers which will fight their way to selfdom trough narcissism but what even when those would be correct and effective in their ideas still are getting stuck on the ladder of pride and nepotism if not plutocracy what again sooner or later will lead to bumpy future ahead from whatever political perspective we would observe it [1][1]

On other hand elitism is not rarely tied in real life to such extroverts thus also in political parties are ending up brainless bragging bulldozers, thus having eTOS vibe as meritocratic lever for selecting the best among the best from every field would be good systematization chance for any society regards intellectual resources and their stamina or where how the same would be boosted, yes someone dont express themselves online well as others yet most of the people through some training get on the e-debating flow, and if that is trained since school time it would bring compact effective societies ...

Believe it or not, please are not much driven by debate and facts as much as how they feel about a topic. One reason for this is that people's pre-existing beliefs and biases can strongly influence their receptiveness to new ideas or arguments. People tend to filter information through their existing worldview, seeking confirmation of their own beliefs rather than being open to changing them. This phenomenon is known as confirmation bias. Thus, if we can somehow present the facts in a meaningful and objective way, you will still have people disagreeing with truthful, yet unpopular ideas. I noticed this first hand before Trump got elected back in 2016. He would make the soundest arguments about topics x, y, and z, and still people would spin it however they like because they simply didn't like him or what he represented. People aren't as logic as you hope them to be. In fact, I'd say upwards of 80% of the world's population is irrational in their thinking, or they barely think at all for themselves.

Hm, I'll say those are quite vague assumptions regards the cognitive capabilities of Mankind in general, defacto as communities since ever council of elders was chosen to lead the tribe, but that dont meant that people couldnt rise to hierarchy through knowledge and skills or that they couldnt speak up, what mids the current circumstances of large societies and supposedly democracy should be even more norm, still while there are various means someone to share his opinion and/or advice what we are lacking now is greater debate vibe for what eforums as etool in these times should be extensively used, but until such etool dont becomes mandatory institutional reality so would be mobilized all the available intellectual power then we will continue to till out in propaganda mode when through vlogs or tv duels as opposite opinion is remembered only the ego or the paid promotions, and instead those to be only narrowed to informative etools of whatever eforum debate sadly but those became prime way for expert
 communication as slow projected one way debate waiting on future ineffective responses on the thrown gloves!, hm I have some feeling as if eforums are intentionally suppressed and forgotten altho have potential for utmost effective expert debate that would be unburdened from biases or propaganda if used clever moderation!, again like that any society would have also good filtration of its intellectual power coz now how things stand many clever people simply refuse to get onboard whatever topic mids soc.nets or tv coz risk to be rudely trashed by whatever opposition to their stance coz the majority of engaged tilt in agitprop mode!, saying that now the current trends are healthy weighing of the secluded expertise and methodologies of system tweaking and maintenance its wrong by all means if we know that not just mids capitalism but also socialism corruption is norm due the closed system, thus one effective opening of any social system is through eTOS vibe, the question is whether some organism is completely choked by junk thus the patient needs to be fully stripped so would be examined by many willing to help with their knowhow or it can afford to stay tightly dressed and open only for academic consultation, tho even in that case it would be beneficial if its mandatory for students (so would graduate) to debate on own thematic academic eforums and sense the need for or see effects of collaboration through debate on particular projects ~ what eventually will serve later as blueprint for the future generations as archived knowhow ... the main problem in all cases as archiving would be risks from emf warfare in whatever next global war but even those could be evaded if in time is addressed the issue and brought risk management solutions for the archive to be restored [1][1]-[1][1] imagine how useful it would had have been if institutional and ngo eforums are mandatory in this context which could serve as base to be jumpstarted the system after whatever cataclysm and how precious would be particular knowhow for whatever natural science!?, hm many probably put credence in a.i. backups now but such hope deprived from emotional intelligence will only lead to further devastation!

You're giving humanity far too much credit. Try living in a multicultural society for a couple of years. Your opinion will change very quickly. Trust me when I say that not all people are built equally when it comes to intellect. You can present some people with the finest proof and facts, and they still won't believe you because they're not wired the same way, perhaps a rational person like yourself, would be. As a college instructor, I interact and speak to people from all walks of life. When I teach the class a lesson, what some students find easy, others wouldn't be able to comprehend even if I spent ten more hours in the classroom...

Hm Hm Hm yes mixing strawberries with ananas goes smooth only in Macedonia di Fruta, tho as macedonian can say multiculty vibe can be also tasty if we contemplate cultural vibes and somehow edible as political too if and when common interests are forced, stil when debate is in question I dont see why productive dialog cant be reached even mids opposite stances, the problem is when that debate goes in assembly tv or soc.nets where propaganda mode is by default norm on top flushed by clannish politicians, instead the same primarily to be ongoing among experts on eforums as constant thematic communication, here I project ngo eforum debate per'se what could be achieved easily if ngo's are by law obligated to have active eforum debate if want to be eligible for state funding!, it would be ideal to exist to those parallel eforums where the rest nonexpert members and/or citizens could reexpert the experts, but for start it would be enough dedicated academic debate to pop up in every field among likeminded what eventually again will bring plethora of different points of view and like that faster polishing of particular issues coz the very nature of constant open for debate etool, but again if there is no neat moderation even on such expert eforums conversation could erupt in egotripping, fo what think good approach would be members to participate only with nickname instead official credentials, altho once someone would link his blog posts so would ease the discussion it will be revealed the identity, but still removing the name bring some less stiff attitude among discutants eg. among ex-professor and ex-student in a way it would be exempt the atmosphere of whatever elitism or expectations, eg. in Your case just when You've mentioned that You are c.instructor suddenly Your stance looks more firm altho in my opinion is solely incomparable generalization coz I am pointing on expert debate i.e. we are all hungry to see same weight intellectual ufc alike clash of opinions, now instead we are collecting them piece by piece from vlogs or tv and clashing them in our heads weak after weak but what would be far more productive and effective if it was compacted and constant on eforums while on blogs/vlogs or in media to be presented review of all the steaming on particular thematic eforum ...

... think this next quote with remove typo should be memorized and analyzed i.e. why and how ngo what about institutional eforums if become wide spread reality will release us from ridiculous bullying of propaganda machines usually n hands of the plutocrats in need to impose own unpopular agendas, eg. why and how full digital economy where needs to be implemented or what would be effective risk management, something that a.i. cant anticipate simply coz cant collect all necessary data, but even if it could again if Life would be leveled to such mechanistic living by itself will implode as we know it, hm there is "someone" actually that dream about such homo'silicone shift, and thats why we need immediate 24/7 weighing of the bioethical and ecoethical risks of transhumanism as genetic and bionic revolution slipped now covertly in front of our eyes without any liability on top but masked by agitprop means how "they" know what "they" do, yeah  from malthusian perspective surely!

I do like the idea of being anonymous when presenting ideas, but that's only really possible on an "eforum" platform.


When debates are conducted on live television/broadcast, we don't see the propaganda until the very end, when they have a panel of so-called experts to analyze what happened. The same can happen online however, where people go to twitter to project their own interpretations about what had been said to their own followers. Therefore, it is impossible for the water not to get muddy in either way.

Another issue I have with complete anonymity is how do you take the person making a post seriously if you don't know how they look and where they come from? For example, if I were a 10 year old making rational posts online, would you take me as seriously as an adult whose been married for x years and has fathered three children?

Logical remarks, but if You noticed I am suggesting selection even in ngo party or institutional eforums where first there would would be 1. expert eforum attended by verified member and eventually to it 2. parallel eforum where other nonexpert members and/or citizens would had have opportunity to reexpert their debate, double eforum so also by neat moderation even nonexpert opinion will be kept cohesive and productive, think alone just expert eforums will push the rest to tilt again on soc.nets and like that again missed opportunity to be seen some out of the box brainstorming ideas that as compacted in thematic eforum will stay for long as idea pool if not else ...

... about anonymity that could be smoothly resolve like here on BiFo where the members could decide when is more appropriate to share their ideas as own official stance or just dive in loosely without risking to stain their name ...

... removed typos haha in essence not all people have will time or focus so always would kept high lexical bar in their eforuming thus its better for their flow of debate to go anonymous on ngo or party eforums while on institutional eforums eventually to be mandatory credentials, but even there coz risks of animosity or ridiculing its better to be kept nicknames while moderators for granted would know who is participating coz in institutions responsibility would go further than debating ideas but also active projects laws etc.

Probably to the above point another that could be added is the need for stimulated debating culture [1] if we want to get maximum from etool like eforums!, altho by clever moderation that too could be managed in various ways eg. if some eforum member (expert or not) has good points but rude language there should be rule that mods keep the right to "purify" the post even that was intellectual rights breach tho one more excuse for having nicknames instead real names coz the sake of fluid constructive debate ...

... also experts should be stimulated to have blogs and vlogs and footnote them as broader explanation for some point so the debate flow would be unburdened from long posts, or such vlog/blog option could be added to the eforum as platform or linked tool at disposal ... I'll advise platform one for dedicated local eforums or having archived transcript if using yt so would be kept the shared vlog content for good eg. [2]

And maybe from the far side of useful integration of all citizens even on eventual parallel/double eforum for nonexpert members could and should be introduced Chatbox plug [3][4][4] for every thread (even every post [3] useful for keeping digressing compact too) so all not willing to debate eloquently would tilt free in trivial soc.net alike mode with their responses, plus where as thread'chat'box it could end up all problematic posts (if there is policy of no'editing'posts by mods) as kind of balance between stiff moderation and frustration built up by members coz deleted posts, simply it should be respected the spent time of all, but also like that exercising extra democratic vibe even on ngo party or institutional eforums, hm someone will say such approach would not be clever for institutional eforums yet think that would be useful for the institutional managers to analyze their effectiveness or public opinion about its work what eventually can bring motivation for correction also maybe by the citizens advices how where thing could be changed, coz many times eureka rush comes from people working in garage but having no means to share their exaltation will end up as evaporated chance for all!, tho the problem there could be corruption or laziness bashing of the institution that could be demotivating but also choking for all that work there, thus it should be seen which institutions when for what could be opened to direct communication with citizens while mostly opened for direct communication (on laws reforms and projects) with ngo's ... hm maybe citizens could benefit if their case (all cases) are public by consent (as option) where it could be opened thread where some citizen could invite some expert to communicate publicly (or not) regards the stalled case coz more quickly resolved issues, eh just how many times I would be waiting in vain for answer coz someone forgot where is the key of the drawer!, yep ideally if all institutional work is upped online the system would get sober solely by shame of such nakedness i.e. all will know why administration cant keep normal pace of servicing of the citizens and like that also chance citizens to be helped easily by experts or the institutions by ngo's or other solidary collogues around the state ... probably for institutional eforums stiff debate moderation will be norm by default but having thread chatbox could keep frustrations articulated in the right corner coz someone has bad temper as citizen and need bin where to dump his frustrations while if that is done in his main thread surely that will be penalized by fine so would be trained normal e-communication by future widely open institutions and citizens!

I'm not sure how this insight contributes to the overall purpose behind starting this thread, that is, "Why the current euroatlantic democracy is farce!?" If as you say democracy is farce, how is conducting eforum debates, where full transparency is promoted through logical arguments, going to change the fact that it is all a lie?

Huston we have a problem but how things stand the farce is going beyond transparency as mean for cornering corruption which as we can see is legal on "west"!, on the far side of that democratic farce its waiting transhumanism malthusianism utopianism and etc ism of the euroatlantic determinists to consume us all, so either we will mobilize ourselves or wait to see what "they" will bring as a.i. technocracy ahead!

Trust me I am ontopic with these digressions, tho maybe You are used to clown politics and expect that I will dive in arsenic style instead firefighting one ... I'll try to be as short as possible while repeating myself in attempt to narrow mine problem solution approach ...

1. There is no true representation but by lies collected votes and no responsibility day after the mandate, where its not word for the percentage of efficiency of the promised, but usually complete opposite outcome thant the promissed by the representatives, aside that by trickery are pushed various unpopular laws or projects!

2. Currently the only means that are at disposal of citizens to respond to the fakery of representation is to file court appeal or wait parties to negotiate deal after eventual pressure by protests, but what again how is rolling behind closed doors eventually leads nowhere or the justice is served to slow, so at best we have stalled democratic process in places where corruption hasnt paralyzed the political elites, in reality now what would be the worst case we have stew of corrupt slow system for any righteous change!

3. Logic response to such swamp of wrong elitism is as much as possible opening of the system, what could be done by Direct Participatory Democracy for what except e-referendums per'se we need constant 24/7 expert debate so the mud would be cleared and citizens quickly get unbiased stance about the issues on which would need to give referendum consent constantly as legal mean for reaching at least balance between the current plutocracy and the later democracy!

4. Altho if the expert debate continues in agitprop mode what will depend on the modertion policy mostly (as is now case trough the current e-vibe solely on tv or vlogs/blogs on top slow back and forth communication) even through ngo or party eforums and constant thematic eforum debate surely citizens again will tilt out in wonder which position is the correct one, but at least would be seen fast grinding of opposite opinions and easier removing wheat from the chaff coz now citizens run in circles and slowly wait to built a true picture whats at stake for particular societal problem and as consequence by "appeal to emotion" giving their votes or support!

5. In case of constant eforum clash among experts first we would need to accustom on all the intellectual egoism where till its built steady atmosphere things will flow guess bit edgy, eg. what could be sensed on current videochats where opposites meet eg. JayD vs heretics in context of Orthodox Christian Apologetics [1] but where it could be noticed that the level of expertise matters thus thats why think its utmost important to be seen 24/7 expert debate on thematic eforums but among equally knowledgeable members, more or less where however slow would look that will flow of debate stil when is constant it will get own elegance of polishing ideas once moderated correctly leaving no room for boredom trivialization wining or bickering and/or intentional propaganda techniques but per'se pushed focus on the scientific method or creativity of problem resolving!, what sooner or later depending of the amount of eTOS dimensioning will dismantle the current farce of democracy by normal observation instead like now further and further stucking in live plutocratic sand!

Post Merge: 10 months ago

missed the JayD link here is it [1]


Just how wrong time consuming is debate among literate and half literate people!, not that exceptionalism should be norm but when scientific method is in question the attempt to merge different opinion debate with different standardization on top imagine without neat moderation it could get really devasting even expert eforums where reality, what tho if its not case on eventual parallel citizen eforum to it will be issue again!, thats why ngo eforums should be norm so particular filtration should be present so would not be choked the useful idea flow!, eg. mine nonexpert reasoning its maybe ok now coz lack of debate, but if particular expert land in this thread surely I'll tilt around if not else terminology once the flow gets in deeper waters, altho the thread title is enough vague so I could derail the discussion however I want, and thats why we need thematic eforums eg. Political Science One with subforum dedicated solely for Direct Participatory Democracy where in separate threads will be examined e-referendums and eTOS in more theoretical and practical way ... still parralel eforums would be useful so those that mastered some field and dont have degree could get onboard instead like now tilting on soc.nets in vain among al the triviality, simply we need mobilization as societies so would tackle all the temptations ahead!, even elites will benifit from such eTOS vibe but hek "they" are afraid that in such circumstances "their" current buried corruption or laziness will reach an 24/7 wide and loud exposure!

Voting on a referendum only gives you the results of the most popular opinion, but the most popular opinion isn't what's best for everyone. If city dwellers vote yes on a referendum, it may affect people elsewhere living in suburbs or rural areas. Just because there are more city dwellers, the votes of the other group will not be equally represented. Hence, there is a flaw in this idea.

Further, you talk about the all-encompassing power of the elite. Yet, you are fine with using technologies that can easily be tempered with. How can you trust the elite - whom you claim to be all-powerful and thus can easily manipulate electronic results - and at the same time advocate for a system that falls right into their hands (assuming all that you're saying is correct)?

As Stalin put it: "It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes."


Debates can drag on for hours. No one is going to sit through and read every post while they can be using that time to help support their family, go to work, build a shed, etc. This idea of writing all these ideas down isn't new; visit any official website of a political party, and it will state what their positions are on topics that are most important to the population they are representing.

Referendums could be obligatory or consultative, it depends what kind of framework would be employed as direct democratic tool!, saying its possible ultra equal vote its even beyond utopia, simply majority should have advantage of democracy, otherwise we would need to contemplate anarchy and sooner or later again will pop up need for some common order, but so would not dive in theoretical propositions I'll just say if there is eTOS Vibe around then surely mids eventual Direct Participatory Democracy will be addressed Ethics as prime norm  in which case minorities would be secured from bullying!, also we Dont Need To Be Afraid from the chance to be restrained wrong elitism by Referendums coz that is the only normal way past beyond the current pressuring by protests and rioting which for granted will explode mids whatever future crisis!, such tool will actually secure the system from collapse stagnation or totalitarianism coz in crisis elites are showing "their" true nature!

Hm maybe I leave impression how "they" are metastasized tissue but that dont means it cant be stopped or removed!, yet for such stunt we need opening of the system!, and above all constant on the go consultation among most versed experts that will fine tune the healing or chopping resonance!, alone emergence of expert ngo eforums will start that process of opening, and its potential that can signal to the parties to follow!, eventually its question whether such institutional opening will become case, but if some state wants to mobilize its intellectual pool and start cornering corruption eTOS vibe would be necessary!, small states on this behalf have advantage tho ...

The idea about eTOS is defacto unburdening of all from the current dissonance of psyop debate that rolls on media vlogs/blogs and soc.nets, in practice if the right man polish publicly the right topics 24/7 as dedicated experts ideally in ngo's where same field opposites will clash their reasoning, like that effective solutions will pop up more quickly than now!, surely only knowledgeable from the field academicians and citizens will follow that debate while media will paraphrase the outcome for the rest to get informed what could come up from those ideas, surely parties will further use that idea pool for making projects and laws, altho ngo's by themselves can do that to by direct participation in the system as experts!, in essence the current public debate is too short and too biased thus constant dedicated debate on ngo eforums will alleviate it on normal scientific and democratic level instead the current technocratic and plutocratic dissonance of wrong trials and errors when few experts decide what and why should pass consulting mostly their "lobbyist"!

Odiseizam to be honest, after reading your response, you didn't counter any of the things I mentioned. You didn't give any insight on weight votes, or how the integrity of votes will be protected, or how ineffective online debates are for the average Joe. All you're doing is using fancy slang words
with "isms" attached to them to reiterate your thoughts without really defending them.

You assume how I imply that "they" could easily manipulate the voting, altho I've earlier pointed that there are ways how this to be prevented by 3fa authentication!, and so would not repeat myself I've just said Dont Be Afraid from corrupt political cancer coz it can be chopped or fried out by eTOS vibe ...

About the average Joe as You label the citizens what would be trivialization of their rights, he or they have right to full transparency what could be achieved only if expert debate exist as constant clash of opinions on thematic eforums where will be exposed more factually why some policies are against their interests, something that currently is not case coz not every expert is willing to stroll in the current by propaganda choked media and soc.nets where not rarely get ridiculed by halfliterate even illiterate if not corrupt opposition, respect to all that can find will to jump in all that mess for common good!, thats why suggested JayD good example with his open live vlog sessions where can call whoever wants regards Christian Apologetics but where is instantly obvious what is expert knowledge and what laymans one!, check them out its really hilarious [[url-]1[/url]] now imagine when bulk of experts will constantly polishing studies projects laws in its own field of interest surely like that many things will get way clear than now when behind closed doors are packaged issues and just dropped for government implementation without any preexisting public debate or when exist usually lasts few days when actually is thrown only promotion of the project or law!, simply the majority of experts are removed from the decision making process and thats why I propose way around the current elitism in form of mandatory ngo eforums, aside the chance that those that are abroad as expats can also contribute to their former colleagues back home!, plus such momentum will be good knowhow database for the future colleagues, and above all the system will have 24/7 fact check community if not else!, tho believe there will be various benefits from such reality!

Again all that debate will be followed and simplified by the media so citizens would get the gist of it, while if there are parallel eforums to those expert one then also citizens or journalists will have opportunity to reexpert the main debate!, now lets say this was happening then how elites will infiltrate or control the narrative, hm surely bots will drop in without hesitation but whatever current spins will be very difficult to be imposed by simple trickery as is now case eg. with the kgbt agenda etc. etc. simply just by starting such ngo eforum vibe opening of the system is inevitable and sooner or later that will lead even to institutional eforums where ngo's will debate the administration or politicians so would be reached indeed smoother run of the machine!, as I've said smaller states can release such reform instantly if understand that mids the next global financial crisis will drop in further problems than nowadays thus it would be logical now to bring this kind of societal risk management if not else so all frustrations will be canalized in right manner instead on streets, coz only through equal reassessment by all available expertise can be reached balance and commitment for joint push towards whatever needed progress or simply basic servicing!, guess in such circumstances citizens will get also proactive and volunteer more frequently for the good of their communities, what tho also through constant debate can be boosted!, is this fancy talking hm dont know, just share my opinions how we can start behaving like beehive instead corrupt mosquitos!, maybe You are afraid to debate equal in Your own field of expertise coz that is energy consuming task, but I am sure there are many that with smile will accept to help their own societies if there is arranged effective debate space for that!