> Only the worlds largest asset manager and the leading proponent of The Great Reset.
Edit: Got it. It's from a list of unsurprising predictions from [at least] the marketing department of the World Economic Forum. Thanks.
Related: https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s...
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBBxWtKKQiA [2]https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-real...
I like walking in and out with a clear head from threads, voting behavior changed, and you're always going to get downvoted through the floor for disagreeing. Might as well know it was because of that, than because you were incurious or impolite.
The claim of many is that the WEF wants to bring about a world in which the vast majority of people don't have ownership.
Reuters "fact checks"[1] this claim by saying that it was merely a prediction, and that it isn't actually a goal listed on their website.
I find the fact check unpersuasive. The WEF says "you will be happy" about not owning anything. That they would even think that reveals something about the values of that organization. If that is part of what they would consider to be a happier world, why would they not push for it (in private, if not in public)?
[0]https://www.facebook.com/worldeconomicforum/videos/101539205... [1]https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-wef-idUSL1N2MR1UU
edit: -4 in 7 minutes, anyone have tips on exactly how you are allowed to discuss any of this without wholesale accepting it?
It is against the rules to complain about downvotes.
Someone else disagreed without receiving similar downvotes.
Your downvotes are probably because of statements like "and refusing to accept any downplaying of it". It's not that I would refuse to accept any downplaying, just that I don't find the ones offered to be persuasive.
If you focus on attacking the argument at hand, rather than on the mental state or character of those you are arguing with, you will have more success.
I'm genuinely unaware what part of the unedited tweet includes the factors you mention, namely questioning mental state or character. Reproduced here, I can't find anything, I'm trying really hard:
It feels like this analysis is missing something, ex. have you had any property rights taken away in the ensuing 5 years? If discourse hinges on a 2 minute YouTube video and refusing to accept any downplaying of it, what hope does discourse have? There's approximately infinite two minute YouTube videos
I recognize that the edits include the factor you mention, those edits occurred enough after an unusually high number of downvotes, and the scored has rebounded since. Note this has nothing to do with anyone else's mental state or character, nor questioning it, or in anyway intended to relate to it.
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
As to your question:
> I'm genuinely unaware what part of the unedited tweet includes the factors you mention, namely questioning mental state or character.
For clarification: by mental state, I mean simply another person's state of mind (beliefs, intentions, etc) not mental health (sanity or intelligence).
In this case, saying that people would refuse to accept any downplaying of the WEF statement presumes knowledge about the beliefs of others. As Scott Adam's would say, it's "mind reading". Frankly, you don't know whether I or anyone else would refuse any downplaying. You only know that we refuse the ones provided.
Now, we all have to model the beliefs and intentions of others, but we are often a lot worse at it than we think, and even more so in online communication. Therefore it is best to avoid such "mind reading" language.
Of course, I am making assumptions about the intentions of the WEF! But I'm careful to separate what they actually said from what I infer about their intentions.
What part of that says its "against the rules", as claimed?
> For clarification: by mental state, I mean simply another person's state of mind (beliefs, intentions, etc) not mental health (sanity or intelligence).
Sounds right.
> In this case, saying that people would refuse to accept any downplaying of the WEF statement presumes knowledge about the beliefs of others. As Scott Adam's would say, it's "mind reading". Frankly, you don't know whether I or anyone else would refuse any downplaying. You only know that we refuse the ones provided.
What would Scott Adams say about you recasting any questioning as downplaying, then invoking a general statement from him in service of furthering recasting questioning as "mind reading", then self-assuredly letting me know that you're being frank, not glib, when you tell me I don't know what you'll accept.
All of this, btw, not responding to the question you claim you're answering, quoted as if you were answering, and now you've burdened with further broad claims about _my_ state of mind and what you believe I _think_ I'm arguing
Give me some rope here, let me redirect: you're claiming that the set of following words, bounded by " marks:
"It feels like this analysis is missing something, ex. have you had any property rights taken away in the ensuing 5 years? If discourse hinges on a 2 minute YouTube video and refusing to accept any downplaying of it, what hope does discourse have? There's approximately infinite two minute YouTube videos"
contains:
- questioning a person's mental state (as in beliefs, intetions)
- questioning a person's character
- a statement that people would refuse to accept any downplaying of the WEF statement
- mind reading
Unfortunately, giving you charity here also reads as mind-reading under the extremely broad definition you've given it, so forgive me if what I perceive as normal conversational banter is yet another violation of the rules I missed: I believe you got in over your skis and tried to rope in a discussion of your readings of Scott Adams and what you think he said as an answer to "what's the best way to talk about this so I don't get downvoted?", and you've unintentionally tripled down on explaining that the downvotes are a result of the edit that came after the downvotes.
EDIT: Lordy I didn't realize you were the original person I replied to. You haven't engaged with a single comment I've made in this thread, just meta-explained why you don't need to engage with anything ever. Scott would have your head on a platter for invoking him in defense of this post-modern argumentation style
They pulled the Tweet, and they pulled the video, but here, you can read the Forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s...
Right in that first paragraph: "I don't own a car. I don't own a house." The title is "Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better."
Frankly, I don't care if the people noticing this lounge around in period-authentic SS uniforms at night, what's true is true, no matter who picks up on it.
And it's a trend along with the "hey, those bugs, you should try eating them!" articles that are so breathlessly hyped.
Now, it says "You WILL own nothing and you WILL be happy." This wasn't just some rando blogpost, it went through a lot of editorial eyes and hands. Will is very interesting. It's not optional. There's no choice involved.
A video where futurists predict that you'll rent almost everything instead of buying it, isn't the same thing as evidence that the WEF is enacting communism.
Let's try to be clear about the nuance and details of what we're talking about.
The article was archived shortly after publication [2].
I've not seen anything about buying up existing private homes at a big mark-up, though.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/0d965c11-936e-4467-b98f-f4d34fae2...
Your complaint is the label? Great Reset sounds apt.
I take strong issue with your careful labeling of those with whom you disagree as all leaning in one direction politically.
It kind of reminds me of what was done with "New World Order", which people seem to be moving on from since the conspiracy pundit predictions haven't been realized (e.g. no world authoritarian government yet).
I made direct reference to "The Great Reset," itself, from the very purveyors of it - the WEF. There's no need, nor any value, in trying to conflate my response to you with this strawman group you're forming.
> (e.g. no world authoritarian government yet)
Your interpretation of the world is highly specious. Have you been in a coma for these past 1.5 years?
> One of its least helpful usages
Very interesting choice of words, least helpful. Seems to me like you have a strong ideological alignment with the goals of the World Economic Forum.
See, it's so easy to flip your entire script and end up presenting the exact case being made by the conspiracy theory people. The New World Order fanatics could see the WEF as their fictitious enemies moving on to a new strategy, specifically because there is now an authoritarian government established. And it could be seen as a sloppy form of punditry, overfit atop a very specific and narrowly-targeted interpretation of the world, making the conspiracy people all the more mad that more people don't see things their way. Because there could be "real collective action," if more people did see it their way.
Under those considerations, I would be naive to be any less skeptical of your position, than I am of the conspiracy theory strawmen you're establishing here.
The actual "The Great Reset," pursued by the WEF is concerning specifically because it seeks to align economic interests globally, forcing them into a densely-regulated system through negative incentives. It forgoes and utterly mocks the notion that knowledge ought to be distributed, decentralized, and localized. There are not just huge economic concerns here, but ethical ones as well. Wars will be fought over the disagreements spawned from the aims of these zealots.