1
- 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 9/27/26 at 10:43 am to Azkiger
Posted on 9/27/26 at 10:43 am to Azkiger
quote:
Only if said country's elected said leader fairly.
That's a TERRIBLE qualifier to add given the population pushing what "globalism" means. You're adding exponentially more malleability to an already extremely malleable term, and even more reliance on claims without direct, credible evidence to create this exponential multiplier effect.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
Less like - can be used - purported - malleable - shifts with speaker - perception - many cases
All passive voice - "malleable" - loop hole - weasel words. ie attorney speak.
Use a sea of opinions and attribute inconsistencies to everyone.
More posts and words than anyone - still never persuasive.
All passive voice - "malleable" - loop hole - weasel words. ie attorney speak.
Use a sea of opinions and attribute inconsistencies to everyone.
More posts and words than anyone - still never persuasive.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:03 am to Nevada_Tiger
quote:
All passive voice
It's not my term.
I use it as an amalgamation of others' usage (hence the quotation marks)
quote:
Use a sea of opinions and attribute inconsistencies to everyone.
You're describing the problem with using malleable echo chamber/NPC terms as if they mean something.
quote:
More posts and words than anyone - still never persuasive.
Well you clearly didn't come into this thread with honest intentions, so your refusal to comprehend isn't shocking.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well you clearly didn't come into this thread with honest intentions, so your refusal to comprehend isn't shocking.
Lol - this is the definition of pot/kettle.
I can explain it to you but not understand it for you.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
All passive voice
It's not my term.
I asked for your definition and you pointed me to your post - then claim it's not my words/definition.
You probably won't take my meaning. See my prior post in regard to explaining vs understanding.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:16 am to Nevada_Tiger
quote:
Lol - this is the definition of pot/kettle.
Not at all.
That's a huge misconception about me, typically by people thinking they're making novel points when it's something I've already seen 100-1000x times before. It's not that my mind is made up, it's that the issue has already been litigated and I'm already more than educated on the issue.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:16 am to SlowFlowPro
It's WOMP. Goes back to 1960. It came up in some of my HS debates as a counter-plan. It got crushed because it was stupid. Never thought it would come back. But it has...big time. They just don't use the name World Order Model Project anymore.
This post was edited on 9/27/26 at 11:25 am
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:17 am to Nevada_Tiger
quote:
I asked for your definition
Why would I have one? The OP was posted and I copied/pasted for you. Do I need to do it again for the 3rd time for you to read?
quote:
and you pointed me to your post - then claim it's not my words/definition.
Yes. This isn't confusing.
The fact that i can observe a term used (inconsistently) by others doesn't mean I buy into the term having value or even, existence.
I can't explain this anymore simply for you.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not that my mind is made up
Please provide an example of a political position you have changed your mind on in the last 5 years.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:20 am to Nevada_Tiger
quote:
Please provide an example of a political position you have changed your mind on in the last 5 years.
5 years? Probably none. That's not the gotcha that you think it is, especially given the ecosphere of political talk (generally, not this forum alone) being dominated by people using terms like "globalism" as if they have value...and that's not even getting into the Qtards
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
5 years? Probably none.
Ok - then 10. If that's not sufficient, remove the time constraint, but please frame your original opinion and what you changed it to with some context as to why.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:25 am to Nevada_Tiger
quote:
Ok - then 10. If that's not sufficient,
I don't know if 10 would work, either
about 21 years ago I had a very dramatic shift that was public and documented on here. This was after an education on politics, history, and political philosophy, so the building blocks were already there (just were misapplied previously). That was strongly solidified int he next 5-10 years.
When you have a +EV political philosophy that's built over time with intelligence, comprehension of the conceptual pillars, and data, I don't know why you would expect major shifts thereafter.
As I told you already
quote:
That's not the gotcha that you think it is
You should have just read it the first time.
I didn't just adopt a position I read online or that someone told me that sounded cool. That's why you haven't seen shifts in me like so many on here.
Hopefully this ends your attempt to derail my thread. This isn't about me
This post was edited on 9/27/26 at 11:28 am
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
about 21 years ago I had a very dramatic shift that was public and documented on here
Words that avoid answering the question - should be easy enough to sum up - or at least cite the board topic in which you detailed your conversion.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Hopefully this ends your attempt to derail my thread. This isn't about me
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:38 am to Zach
quote:
It's WOMP. Goes back to 1960. It came up in some of my HS debates as a counter-plan. It got crushed because it was stupid. Never thought it would come back. But it has...big time. They just don't use the name World Order Model Project anymore.
I had never heard of this until your post, but it's going to inspire a new type added to OP: thinktank Globalism (which covers things like WOMP, the WEF, and Trilateral Comission)
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:43 am to Nevada_Tiger
quote:
Words that avoid answering the question
I answered your question and gave detail as to why it was a silly question to ask me. Stop derailing the thread.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
please frame your original opinion and what you changed it to with some context as to why
No you did not.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:45 am to SlowFlowPro
Globalism is the term given to agendas and policies originated and pushed through by groups that are run on a global level to benefit the elite. Groups such as the world economic forum, World Health Organization, United Nations etc. Globalism is not going to be a one world government. Its agendas and policies are generated through these groups and the countries associated to these groups enforce these policies. It’s basically global corporatism. The people in these globalist orgs are the corporate elite. An example of a globalist policy is the climate change green energy push. Another is unvetted illegal immigration. The ESG push a few years back that failed is another policy. Their main objective is to run a corporatist type government everywhere, own everything and force compliance on all the normal people. Kind of like what China has become.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I had never heard of this until your post, but it's going to inspire a new type added to OP: thinktank Globalism (which covers things like WOMP, the WEF, and Trilateral Comission)
WOMP was used in argumentation on global conflicts.
The WOMP team's position: 'If there are no nations, there can be no wars. You won't live in America or Russia. You'll live in 'World Land.' The governing body and all laws will be determined by an institution we already have... The United Nations!"
The opponent team's position: "Hey, got news for ya. 100s of wars are fought inside of nations...not between nations. Ever heard of the Civil War?"
Womp team: 'Ah, shite.'
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:53 am to SlowFlowPro
The discussion is national sovereignty. I know youre running on 80-85 IQ hardware but try and keep up.
How can you attack a nation's sovereignty if youre removing a leader they didn't elect? The mere presence of a leader a nation didn't elect is an attack on its sovereignty.
By definition the removal of said leader is a defense of their national sovereignty.
How can you attack a nation's sovereignty if youre removing a leader they didn't elect? The mere presence of a leader a nation didn't elect is an attack on its sovereignty.
By definition the removal of said leader is a defense of their national sovereignty.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News