4 ms·

It was from a series of predictions made by the WEF in 2016 about life in 2030[0]. The claim of many is that the WEF wants to bring about a world in which the

It was from a series of predictions made by the WEF in 2016 about life in 2030[0]. 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/10153920524981479/ https://www.facebook.com/worldeconomicforum/videos/101539205... [1]https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-wef-idUSL1N2MR1UU https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-wef-idUSL1N2MR1UU

refulgentis 5y ago
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 edit: -4 in 7 minutes, anyone have tips on exactly how you are allowed to discuss any of this without wholesale accepting it?
- lliamander 5y ago
  > 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.
  - refulgentis 5y ago
    it's not against the rules to complain about downvotes, common misconception! I know you didn't know and this isn't a commentary, or question of, or related to, your mental state or character. 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.
    - lliamander 5y ago
      Let me quote[0]: > 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. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - refulgentis 5y ago
tootie 5y ago
It's pretty clearly just a provocative list of predictions and not a call to action. It's like a commercial from 1995 saying "You'll have a phone in your pocket everywhere you go". They're predicting it will be a major trend that consumers adopt because it will makes sense when it comes. It's not even that crazy of a prediction. There's loads of shit in my house that I use maybe once a year and I wouldn't mind sharing with others via drone.
- lliamander 5y ago
  An NGO comprised of the world's wealthiest corporations telling the rest of us that we will "own nothing and be happy" is a bit cheeky, to say the least.
- xenophonB 5y ago
  lol, it's clearly the direction they want things to go, be honest. If it was something they thought was bad, they'd say so (as for example they do with prediction about climate change.)
xenophonB 5y ago
I also not that supposed "fact check" contains a flat out lie; They first say; "false claims about the WEF have been conflated with conspiracy theories about the United Nation’s ‘Agenda 30’ framework" then later on their "debunking" itself falsely conflates the WEF with the UN Agenda 2030, saying; "False. The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people ‘own nothing and be happy’ by 2030. Its Agenda 2030 framework outlines an aim to ensure all people have access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property." They claim the "proof" that the WEF is not promoting the "own nothing" society is that "their" Agenda 2030 framework promotes property ownership, but it isn't "theirs" at all, it's the UN's. They literally do the same thing to rebut claims about the WEF that they accused the "conspiracy theorists" of.

refulgentis 5y ago

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 edit: -4 in 7 minutes, anyone have tips on exactly how you are allowed to discuss any of this without wholesale accepting it?

lliamander 5y ago
> 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.
- refulgentis 5y ago
  it's not against the rules to complain about downvotes, common misconception! I know you didn't know and this isn't a commentary, or question of, or related to, your mental state or character. 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.
  - lliamander 5y ago
    Let me quote[0]: > 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. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - refulgentis 5y ago

tootie 5y ago

It's pretty clearly just a provocative list of predictions and not a call to action. It's like a commercial from 1995 saying "You'll have a phone in your pocket everywhere you go". They're predicting it will be a major trend that consumers adopt because it will makes sense when it comes. It's not even that crazy of a prediction. There's loads of shit in my house that I use maybe once a year and I wouldn't mind sharing with others via drone.

lliamander 5y ago
An NGO comprised of the world's wealthiest corporations telling the rest of us that we will "own nothing and be happy" is a bit cheeky, to say the least.
xenophonB 5y ago
lol, it's clearly the direction they want things to go, be honest. If it was something they thought was bad, they'd say so (as for example they do with prediction about climate change.)

xenophonB 5y ago

I also not that supposed "fact check" contains a flat out lie; They first say; "false claims about the WEF have been conflated with conspiracy theories about the United Nation’s ‘Agenda 30’ framework" then later on their "debunking" itself falsely conflates the WEF with the UN Agenda 2030, saying; "False. The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people ‘own nothing and be happy’ by 2030. Its Agenda 2030 framework outlines an aim to ensure all people have access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property." They claim the "proof" that the WEF is not promoting the "own nothing" society is that "their" Agenda 2030 framework promotes property ownership, but it isn't "theirs" at all, it's the UN's. They literally do the same thing to rebut claims about the WEF that they accused the "conspiracy theorists" of.