0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is your personal definition of "globalism" ?
Posted on 9/28/26 at 6:38 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/28/26 at 6:38 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/28/26 at 6:40 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/28/26 at 6:42 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/28/26 at 6:47 am to SlowFlowPro
Klaus Schwab for $1000, Alex.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. This post was edited on 9/28/26 at 6:50 am
Posted on 9/28/26 at 6:57 am to Nevada_Tiger
quote:
That’s been well established and self evident. Doesn’t make it the point of the thread though
That literally is the point of the thread
FIRST PARAGRAPH OF OP
quote:
As has been discussed at great length since 2016, "globalism" often acts less like a fixed definition and more like an umbrella label whose meaning is supplied by the surrounding story/argument. The term can be used for an established policy-oriented usage and a conspiratorial usage centered on a purported hidden cabal. It's completely malleable and shifts with the speaker and conversation to create the perception of a boogeyman. In many cases I've seen the kernel of truth fallacy used for irrational extrapolation.
This wasn't some scheme. The thesis was listed literally at the start of the thread.
Posted on 9/28/26 at 6:58 am to Nevada_Tiger
quote:
Everything you posted here beginning with your subject was dishonest.
There was nothing dishonest. I laid out the point of the thread immediately
quote:
You had zero interest in hearing what anyone had to say in regard to globalism.
I literally added 2 definitions to the list based off posters' contributions
Seriously, can y'all read?
Posted on 9/28/26 at 6:59 am to SlowFlowPro
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Would Klaus Schwab have resigned WEF, IF DJT WAS NOT CONUS PRESIDENT?
One answer only.
YES
NO
This post was edited on 9/28/26 at 7:01 am
Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:01 am to cajunangelle
The WEF has no power to do anything. I hate to break it to you.
Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:03 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:12 am to SlowFlowPro
I N C O R R E C T, TRY AGAIN, YOU FAILED.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:13 am to cajunangelle
quote:
I N C O R R E C T, TRY AGAIN, YOU FAILED.
The WEF is an NGO with no authority to do anything.
Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"So we penetrate the cabinets” of governments
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:17 am to cajunangelle
That would still be the governments themselves doing something, not the WEF
Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:18 am to SlowFlowPro
Twitter embed…
Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:19 am to roadGator
Not just that, a partial quote snippet as that Twitter embed
Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:21 am to SlowFlowPro
The winner will define it. Just have to wait and see who the winner is.
Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:24 am to SlowFlowPro
You are slipping Sloeunuchpro. AZ has you off your game. You haven’t used the word “malleable” in pages. Really came out strong but the flame appears to have grown to hot and the candle burned down to fast.
Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:26 am to SlowFlowPro
I lean more toward the cultural/immigration lens because long term that erodes what makes each country unique, but another key piece is the erosion of economic independence in favor of not just an interconnected world, but an interdependent one.
The logic is that if we are all demographic soups of people and we all rely on each other to keep our economies going then there will be fewer wars. That works (or at least could work) regionally, I think the EU structurally could be a very productive thing if they didn't want to commit systemic demographic suicide. But ultimately what will happen in this case is there will be some resource or widget that becomes vitally important for everyone (semis?), and when a few countries control access to those they can dictate the behavior and policy of everyone else.
A less diverse population that have similar worldviews with each other will be more successful than these soup populations even if the more homogenous countries generally tend toward less efficient policy. Poland isn't some bastion of smart policy on most issues outside of cultural and immigration ones, but they are a successful country because their political splits are closer to each other than ours are. If the other party wins an election you're not going to see a swing from neo-Reaganomics to Marxism in Poland like you could in the US.
The logic is that if we are all demographic soups of people and we all rely on each other to keep our economies going then there will be fewer wars. That works (or at least could work) regionally, I think the EU structurally could be a very productive thing if they didn't want to commit systemic demographic suicide. But ultimately what will happen in this case is there will be some resource or widget that becomes vitally important for everyone (semis?), and when a few countries control access to those they can dictate the behavior and policy of everyone else.
A less diverse population that have similar worldviews with each other will be more successful than these soup populations even if the more homogenous countries generally tend toward less efficient policy. Poland isn't some bastion of smart policy on most issues outside of cultural and immigration ones, but they are a successful country because their political splits are closer to each other than ours are. If the other party wins an election you're not going to see a swing from neo-Reaganomics to Marxism in Poland like you could in the US.
Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:30 am to Dirk Dawgler
quote:
You haven’t used the word “malleable” in pages
Because he tried to derail the actual discussion.
I just couldn't avoid giving him Ls
I'm not perfect
Posted on 9/28/26 at 7:34 am to ShrimperDan
quote:
The logic is that if we are all demographic soups of people and we all rely on each other to keep our economies going then there will be fewer wars.
I can't speak for the racial component of that, but the economic part has been proven true.
It's also been shown to improve the world's SES/SEOL dramatically.
quote:
But ultimately what will happen in this case is there will be some resource or widget that becomes vitally important for everyone (semis?), and when a few countries control access to those they can dictate the behavior and policy of everyone else.
We've seen that countries will adapt and the market reigns.
No resource is more important than petro and look at all the advances we've done in the past 10 years alone.
quote:
Poland isn't some bastion of smart policy on most issues outside of cultural and immigration ones, but they are a successful country because their political splits are closer to each other than ours are.
We're doing a lot better than Poland
Diverse EU countries are doing a lot better than Poland
I don't think that's the example you should use
quote:
If the other party wins an election you're not going to see a swing from neo-Reaganomics to Marxism in Poland like you could in the US.
That's because they're already way more left than we are
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News