The WEF is a confab of self-congratulatory, self-important people, who demonstrate a detached relationship with the concerns of ordinary people. But it's not a global conspiracy. Everything is ten times more boring than you think it is.
Discussion
The only thing that surprises me about the world as I get older, is how much more banal things are than I thought they'd be when I got to see them up close.
A person's life experience and growth is hard to perceive, only when the perception of external things changes. Because all the embodiment of the external world comes from the change of people's self-cognition ability.
But even when everything is banal and everybody seems to be very incompetent and unable to create anything complex, good or bad, still a lot of things happen. The answer seems to be that it doesn't take a lot of effort from a lot smart people to set some things in motion.
But reconciling all of this requires letting go of our impulse to interpret things through a functionalist lens. Which is hard to do, because our dumb brains *really* want to take that shortcut.
It was described to me by a former insider as a place where off the book hallway meetings happen so it’s not exactly nothing either.
There are a lot of people who parrot the conspiracy view point but I doubt they either truly believe nor really know much about the org either.
I know they are not comparable, but WEF reminds me of BBB.
It’s just a lunatic’s dream dangerously close to becoming a reality. I believe that world domination by 2030 is still WEF’s primary goal. Isn’t it?
Talking about these things like you’re in a position to know anything is foolish.
You don’t know, just like the people speculating about conspiracies don’t know. But at least they usually cite some suspicious coincidence, all you’ve done is make a confident statement about something you have no right to be confident about.
Suspicious coincidences and innuendo can be easily constructed for anyone, anything, and at any time. Which is why, generally speaking, these kind of appeals are considered fallacious reasoning in rational and scientific discourse. So I don't know what to tell you. But I guess I would tell you that you're insisting on using things as evidence that centuries worth of philosophy pretty much tells us we shouldn't use as evidence to inform options.
If you had read carefully I was not defending using coincidences, I was merely saying that even this low level of “reasoning” is above your strategy of “just making a totally unwarranted confident statement”.
What is my unwarranted confident statement, exactly?
“It is not a global conspiracy.”
How could you possibly know this? Isn’t the whole point of conspiring to keep something secret?
Well, for one, it's almost impossible to prove of a negative. But on the argument to the affirmative, outside of innuendo, I see no evidence that it is.
I can't possibly prove that there isn't a red teapot in orbit of Pluto, either. But I'd be happy pronouncing there isn't, in the absence of evidence that there is.
No one is asking you to prove anything. No one is claiming there are red teapots in the orbit of pluto.
Epistemic humility is the only thing I would urge you to consider. Why proclaim something you cannot possibly verify or invalidate?
Because I see people saying things, as if they're true, that I believe are exceedingly unlikely to be true, so I said as much. Humility does not negate having opinions. I have sufficient humility that if someone proves the existence of a conspiracy, I will eagerly evaluate the evidence.
The thing that concerns me most is all the plants they have in positions of power, "penetrating the cabinets" as Klaus says.
Bitcoiners: there's a global conspiracy among thousands of unrelated people, governments, and organizations, with disparate objectives, going back centuries, with perfect secrecy!
Also Bitcoiners: governments are retards who can't do anything, and it's totally obvious!