What do you think about this ?

In general the WEF dump alarming and controversial material into the public sphere and they can see that it generates a very bad reaction amongst the general public and they have to row back. Then they do it again, more than once. So a forum of world leaders has no Public Relations strategy? Very odd.

Even on the most innocent interpretation it is a big mistake for a legislator to be spitballing dystopian scenarios.

Apart from anything else the passivity with which this is presented ("hey wouldn't it be bad if people had no property rights?") ignores the fact that such a thing can only come about via legislation. In other words, only the likes of Danish MPs can safeguard or destroy such rights vis a vis Danish citizens. So for a Danish MP to be openly "daydreaming" about this should not receive a sanguine response. It shouldn't be tolerated as it's beyond inappropriate, and obviously it erodes trust.

I'm sure you realise this yourself despite what you say.

In general I would say that as soon as someone starts making disturbing statements the onus isn't on me to "prove" they aren't joking and that they really mean it, I simply cease to trust that person.

There is no obligation to trust or believe anyone. Trust is earned.

If someone is starting from a position of "I will trust this prominent media-promoted billionaire/politician/celebrity until someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are actively motivated to do harm" that's a personal choice they've made to be open to strangers and to accept appearances. Perfectly reasonable in a way but as I said there is no obligation to do this. None at all.

Lol. Nope. That's not where the quote comes from man.

And notice how you didn't actually answer the question.

You saw some youtube video by some conspiracy nut, decided you liked it and accepted what you were told without question.

We should come up with a blog piece about how we'll be living on Mars in the future, owning nothing, eating insects, with a social credit system AND we'll all be chipped

Send it to the WEF, see if some clerk in there absentmindedly retweets it and watch the online Armageddon unfold.

I mean that's how the whole Qanon thing started, surely it's worth a shot..

And then we will have people on this forum asking such gems as "Would you be happy owning nothing on Mars?"

Elite paedophilia was a David Icke conspiracy theory a decade ago. Now it's just a mundane fact.

Why would mass tracking or depopulating be beyond the ken of someone who rapes young girls in their "private life"? (Or is 'only' close friends with someone who does.)

The facade that Gates is a friendly, well-meaning nerd with business sense - which held good until very recently - is now totally exploded, never to be put back together again.

It isn't a vindication of every madcap conspiracy attributed to Gates but it shows that he is a *completely untrustworthy* person who deserves no benefit of the doubt of any kind, from anyone. He should be universally shunned.

There's no relation between David Icke and reality.

Paedophiles have been around since the year dot, however it's only really in recent decades, through changes in society and other factors that the issue has come more to the forefront, leading to larger investigations and uncovering abuses, e.g. the Catholic church

Conspiracy theorists have utterly nothing to do with that. However they screech endlessly that everyone in power is a paedophile (except for the serial adulterers they like) so when someone actually turns out to be a paedophile they say "we did that". No they didn't.

Maybe it would be a more interesting world if our local TDs woke up in the morning gripped by Dr Evil notions of a 1984 style dystopia, hell-bent on "controlling" and "tracking" the populace, all part of a perfect hivemind of other officials all working towards the same nefarious end-goal.

Sadly, I don't think they do. Still, conspiracy theorists keep the dream alive. Any day now.

Lol. Why is it impossible for you to explain what you did to verify something?

it's only impossible if you didn't actually verify it.

And no, I wouldn't be happy owning nothing. I wouldn't be happy owning a lot of stuff. My happiness isn't dependant on owning stuff.

It's not a relevant question because the WEF is not trying remove the concept of ownership.

Ok. You claim to have heard him talk about it.

Where? When?

I think you are lying. I don't think he has actually said any such thing.

I know where the quote comes from and the context it was said in. It didn't come from Klaus Schwab and you're the first person to claim he said it.

So cool. Post the youtube link. Point to where he said it.

But lemme guess, you're going to make some excuse as to why you're not going to find it, right? Going to claim that it was deleted off youtube or something? Anything and everything accept admit that you were wrong because you were too lazy and dishonest to actually check into something?

You're not posting the link because it doesn't exist. You lied. You didn't see it on twitter.

You did nothing to actually verify the statement. You just swallowed the claim whole from some grifter.

And now weirdly, rather than just admit to this, you lied.

Why man? Why do you have to lie to support your position?

Why do you believe your position when you have to lie?

I do read conspiracy theorists links. It's usually a good way to explain why they're misrepresenting them.

And I have searched. You're lying.

You know you're lying.

Please explain why. I genuinely don't get it.

You aren't preserving any illusion of credibility. No one is being fooled by your lie.

Are you lying on reflex? Do you think that if you try really really hard your lie will become truth?

Why do you not look into the stuff you believe? Are you afraid that you might start to question them?

It was published on the site first, with disclaimers stating that it didn't actually reflect any of their WEFs goals or wants. The context of the article makes it very clear. But of course, no conspiracy theorists actually read the article. (The article doesn't even say that no one will own anything.)

It was later included in some twitter video or something where the "you'll own nothing" quote was used in a list of other statements. This is what the majority of conspiracy theorists are screaming about.

A twitter video. Not an article. Not a statement. Not an actual goal.

None of them, bad2thebone included looked any deeper than the conspiracy grifter bleating that quote at them.

They just believed what they were told like good little sheep. And then, they lie about it to preserve that belief from mean and upsetting questions.

How do you know she is "nice"?

Obviously a national-level politician should not be writing dystopian fiction and a prominent think-tank should not be publishing it. She isn't George Orwell, she's a legislator with an obligation to protect people's rights so "imagining" these rights might disappear causes scandal.

Even if no one had got "the wrong end of the stick" it shows incredibly poor judgement on the part of several people.

Yes. Have you?

Yes. I don't believe you've actually read it.

Any comment on how your friend is lying and claiming the quote came from Schwab?

She can write whatever she wants. And an economics forum has every right to publish such harmless thought-provoking pieces. If insane people and fringe fundamentalists want to get all worked up over it, even better.

Hope she writes some more. Perhaps about a dystopian future where internet dwellers police her free speech...

Well he's on your side arguing the same stuff you are. Yet, he's lying.

Have you no comment or thoughts on that at all? I think you're ignoring it because you've no issue with misinformation as long as it supports your views.

If you have read the article you'd understand that 1. it is not being suggested as a goal or a desire by anyone. 2. It is not described as either good or bad. 3. it does not say that the idea of ownership is removed. It does not say that you cannot have access to a private vehicle. it does not say you will be forced to share space with anyone.

Hence, because you don't seem to understand this, it's clear you've not actually read the article. You've only read conspiracy grifters describing the article to you, to convince you there's some sort of conspiracy.

And like you're friend, you're lying about it.

So can you point out where the WEF says their goal is to remove the concept of ownership by 2030?

A direct quote that states this clearly would be nice.

If you aren't able to produce this, could you explain why not?

"Well he's on your side arguing the same stuff you are. Yet, he's lying."

Therefore what?

"2. It is not described as either good or bad"

Therefore what? It is, as you say, presented neutrally. I am describing it as bad.

"3. it does not say that the idea of ownership is removed. It does not say that you cannot have access to a private vehicle. it does not say you will be forced to share space with anyone."

These are described as norms of the society in this scenario. For instance motorways are emptied of private vehicles and people cycle or travel on public transport. Nobody owns anything, everything is rented temporarily on a subscribership basis. This is the description of how people live in the society. The "everywoman" of this story lives in insecure accommodation which businessmen use when she is not present.

"And like you're friend, you're lying about it."

I'm not friends with rando strangers and haven't lied. You've seriously got your wires crossed.

He lied. I'm asking what your opinion is on it. The fact you are completely silent and won't even acknowledge that he's lying to support your side shows that you are fine with this kind of dishonesty.

You are claiming that the article is arguing in favour for the scenario, and that this argument is enough to conclude that the WEF's goal is to bring about this scenario.

And no, they are not described as the norms of the society. It does not say that "Nobody owns anything".

It describes that people outside the city in which this woman lives are free to own whatever they like. It also does not mention anything about ownship being made illegal or prohibited. It's shown that renting is simply cheaper and more convenient.

But this is all irrelevant as it's a fictional article.

Please quote where the WEF states that their goal is to bring about this system.

Can you point out where the WEF says their goal is to remove the concept of ownership by 2030?

A direct quote that states this clearly would be nice.

If you aren't able to produce this, could you explain why not?

And you did lie. You claim to have the read the article. This isn't true. You've only read conspiracy cranks talking about the article and convincing you that it points to some conspiracy.