Utopia Talk / Politics / Mental health confusion

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 23 09:55:28 In the last thread seb revealed he is even confused about who he is talking to, let alone about the emergent properties in biological systems, that can’t be explained by up quarks and down quarks.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 23 17:26:54 Nim: Yawn. And once again nim demonstrates bad faith.
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Jun 23 22:15:01 Previous thread: http://uto...hread=91730&time=1687529672823 Seb.. ✅ Has no conscience / morality ✅ Has zero work ethic ✅ Is learning disabled ✅ Suffers from IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia (Seb, The Autistic Koala) ✅ Is incapable of good faith, preferring to.. • ✅ project, • ✅ distort, • ✅ straw man, and • ✅ be intentionally dense when he realizes that he'd have to actually have a position outside of the Regime's ✅ Is a Regime sycophant who only repeats the Party's refrains ✅ Is mentally incapable of the effort required to address arguments in good faith Seb continues this formula: [Seb]: "And once again nim demonstrates bad faith." [✅ Projection] [Seb]: "You don't have an entitlement to be heard [✅ red herring, misrepresentation, straw man] just because you think you are wise and erudite [✅ Misrepresentation, straw man]. If you bury you wisdom and erudition in bollocks [✅ Projection], people aren't going to wade through it to see if there's anything useful [✅ agnosia; cannot reconcile UP thread titles]. They'll just ignore you." [✅ Projection; ✅ learning disabled; ✅ zero work ethic; Seb uses the general "you" to describe his own lazy preferences] [Seb]: "Your convoluted insults" [✅, straw man, projection; ✅ IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia; Seb must call my insults "convoluted" because he is too stupid to understand them] [Seb]: "This isn't because of your devastating argument cannot be refuted" [CC]: "Yes it is. Everything else is you living up to the name I gave you in brackets." [Seb]: "No, it isn't" [CC]: "Yes, it is. Even now, you are evading via semantic weakness. It's all you have." [Seb]: "No, it isn't, because I've already tuned out long before you get to it." [✅ Projection; ✅ learning disabled; ✅ zero work ethic] [CC]: "[Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, projection bot, gas-lighter, and straw man argument generator]" [Seb]: "keep the offensive part concise" [CC]: "I do." [Seb]: "You really really don't." [✅ IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia; Seb says my insults are not "concise" beacuse he is too stupid to read a sentence or recognize that that sentence is repeated and therefore can be taken as a single thought-chunk; Seb does not know how to manage his own cognitive resources and exhausts them quickly.] [CC]: "Seb is wholly unaware of the world totalitarian Regime" [CC]: "The UN/WEF–asset manager coalition. This is now the fifth time in just this thread, Seb (✅ learning disabled): "a massive collusion between nearly all businesses, governments, pharmaceutical companies, NGOs, educators, regulators, pension trustees, brokers, hospitals, and consultants based on the direct financing structure of asset managers manipulating markets"" [Seb]: "Is it in the room with you now? / Look, this thing doesn't exist, isn't a regime or a party. It's a figment of your imagination. " ✅ IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia; Seb shows that he is at the beginning of the Regime's Celebration Parallax; he denies the existence of a thing which is openly taking place simply because it is spoken of negatively. In reality, this entire collusion effort exists, is extensively documented, and is indeed doing what I've been saying that it does — all as proven with extensive links to the primary sources. Seb, being ✅ learning disabled and ✅ having zero work ethic, can only ✅ repeats the Party's refrains. [Seb]: "In any case you are quite incorrect: I am not being sycophantic." [Said directly after he used a Party rhetorical fallacy; ✅ Is a Regime sycophant who only repeats the Party's refrains; ✅ Is mentally incapable of the effort required to address arguments in good faith] [Seb]: "I stand corrected: UP thread titles are 40 characters." ✅ Has zero work ethic ✅ Is learning disabled ✅ Suffers from IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia (Seb, The Autistic Koala) Seb needs all arguments and insults to be no more than 40 characters. Sorry, UP. Those are Seb's rules. We have to adapt to his cognitive limitations. [Seb]: "You insert a completely false straw man argument" ✅ Is incapable of good faith, preferring to.. • ✅ project [Seb]: "I attack this assertion with elegant and understated Line:" ✅ Is incapable of good faith, preferring to.. • ✅ project, • ✅ distort, • ✅ straw man, and • ✅ be intentionally dense when he realizes that he'd have to actually have a position outside of the Regime's [Seb]: "Or just basic decency?" [Seb]: "You assert *this* is a pathos argument. It isn't." It is. "Basic decency" as a reason for using Regime-endorsed pronouns is definitionally a pathos argument; it is a fallacious appeal to emotion used by mental weaklings. Seb.. ✅ Is learning disabled ✅ Suffers from IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia (Seb, The Autistic Koala) ✅ Is a Regime sycophant who only repeats the Party's refrains ✅ Is mentally incapable of the effort required to address arguments in good faith [Seb]: ""toeing a party line" is just another baseless assertion." It is. You took a position which shows absolutely zero daylight between the Regime's preferred position. Seb is.. ✅ Is incapable of good faith, preferring to.. • ✅ project, • ✅ distort, • ✅ straw man, and • ✅ be intentionally dense when he realizes that he'd have to actually have a position outside of the Regime's ✅ Is a Regime sycophant who only repeats the Party's refrains ✅ Is mentally incapable of the effort required to address arguments in good faith [Seb]: "This is silly because you've just clearly demonstrated your own inability to follow a line of argument and correctly apply this analysis." ✅ no conscience / morality ✅ zero work ethic ✅ incapable of good faith, preferring to.. • ✅ project, • ✅ distort, Seb here describes himself and his own inability to operate without non sequiturs. He projects this onto me, hoping to put me on the defensive when his own arguments are weak, pathetic, and nothing but bad faith. Seb is incapable of moving outside of these principles of his own failures. It will always be these same fallacies, weaknesses, and deceptions. If you engage with Seb, he will slowly waste your time with these bad faith deceptions. You merely need to copy and paste what he wrote and add the check boxes for where he attempts to deceive, distort, straw-man, project, or adopt low-IQ "dense"-idiot positions in order to uphold Regime talking points. Seb will continue to believe that "this thing doesn't exist", even as.. • the WEF shows the exact layout of its existence ( http://widgets.weforum.org/esgecosystemmap/index.html#/ ) • The asset managers who created ESG show the same layout (page 11; http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/events/2004/stocks/who_cares_wins_global_compact_2004.pdf ) Seb will always be behind reality because reality is issued only late by the Regime, which distributes truth only when it is "safe" for small minds such as Seb's. Seb will not speak of ESG until the Regime's talking points are issued on the subject. Seb will continue to erroneously believe that these are "parochial" matters until the Regime issues a press release saying that, actually, this is being used everywhere through "sustainability" governance principles which have slowly infiltrated nearly every nations — BRICS+ largely excepted. Seb is 10 years behind reality yet living in the hyper-immediacy of the Regime's delusions. One cannot argue with someone who lives entirely within these delusions.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jun 24 00:35:26 "Leftism is a cult that induces trauma on its adherents. Why? Besides the obvious mind control and cult depenence, I mean. Stability repels revolution. It destroys to destabilize." [Images of Ellen Page before and after surgical emasculation] http://twi...mes/status/1672412836255989761 • "[Ellen] Page recently confessed to being sexually abused by Hollywood figures as a teen. She then became gay, later trans. Her identity issues obviously stem from that trauma rather than being natural, and instead of helping her through that trauma Leftists encourage the symptoms." • "[Leftism] induces resentment and helplessness, which drastically increase the propensity to experience trauma, as well as a variety of other mental illnesses." • "Leftism is a mental problem and a survival strategy ... [In Leftism] Inversion and trickery is a survival strategy"
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jun 24 00:56:31 http://twitter.com/MattPalumbo12/status/1672402071708921861 "this is honestly the funniest picture i've ever seen on the internet the vaguely threatening gesture and stance, the woman meekly clasping her hands together in fear, the difference in size between his massive skull and hers, his caveman-tier slouch making him look like a hunchback versus her standing up straight, the remnants of what appear to be sideburns on the side of his face versus the woman's clear cheeks, the intense expression on his face versus the bewildered expression on hers, the sheer difference in size between their torsos - his is probably double the size of hers, his masculine profile with his chin jutting out and his longer face versus her wider face. i could go on, but you get the idea all of this contrasted with the constant assertion that these people are identical to women and there is no meaningful difference between them makes for the most exquisite form of irony when their differences are juxtaposed so vividly. the contrast is almost divine - on the left is man's hubris, his desire to capture the beauty of nature and make it his own, his cerebral and conscious understanding of what it means to be what he thinks he is, his intentional "becoming", while on the right is nature, effortless being, no doctors appointments or hormones or surgery, just an "is" that needs nothing added to it in order to be complete. he tries so hard and yet, the harder he tries to "become", the further he takes himself away from the effortless "is" that is the thing he wants to be. it's comedy on a cosmic scale, a joke only god himself could come up with"
Seb Member	Sat Jun 24 02:30:18 Cc: Pretty much all of your post is 'I think you are a bad person with bad ideas and bad motivation'; an opinion you are entitled to but I really don't care about. So I'm going to skip to the bit I'm interested in: "It is. "Basic decency" as a reason for using Regime-endorsed pronouns is definitionally a pathos argument; it is a fallacious appeal to emotion used by mental weaklings." A pathos argument is made to the audiences emotions. The best to can say about "basic decency" is that is represents an emotional *motivation* in me that I would feel negatively not to use someone's preferred pronouns *when they are not present*. By advancing this assertion I'm not trying to convince you of the proposition that *you* should use the preferred pronouns because it makes people feel bad. We know you feel good about causing needless offence, and the whole subject is with regard to what we do when people are not in the room. So whose the audience whose emotion this is aimed at? No. It's a logos argument. You have fallen down a rabbit hole of conspiratorial thinking where you believe everything is a giant conspiracy by an "imaginary regime" and so ascribe everything to that regime's actions. I am pointing out there are other explanations available. So, a logos argument. Seb..
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jun 24 04:02:06 [Seb]: "A pathos argument is made to the audiences emotions." Wow, Seb said something correct. [Seb]: "The best to can say about "basic decency" is that is represents an emotional *motivation* in me that I would feel negatively not to use someone's preferred pronouns *when they are not present*." Aaaaaand right back to distortions and manipulations to ad hoc justify his use of deception while pretending that words such as "motivation" and "feel" somehow divorce his pathos argument from emotion. "[Totally, guise! It's not a pathos argument because I would *feel* bad! Oh wait, I'm a fucking idiot. My counter-point contradicts itself! I can't just *say* that my pathos argument is driven by a logos argument! That's retarded and deceptive!]" Again, Seb ✅ Is incapable of good faith, preferring to.. • ✅ project, • ✅ distort, • ✅ straw man, and • ✅ be intentionally dense when he realizes that he'd have to actually have a position outside of the Regime's Seb will literally say anything to edge out any kind of pathetic little "win". This is the leftist mind. And here he goes with that pathos lie: [Seb]: "We know you feel good about causing needless offence" • ✅ distort, • ✅ straw man, And notice again *feel* and "needless". Oh! Don't I have a heart, Seb?? The pathos argument didn't work on me, so clearly I can't *feel*! That, truly, is more important! I should have been susceptible to the pathos argument, that way I wouldn't have called out the pathos argument and necessitated *another* pathos argument! How many pathos arguments before I just pretend that pathos arguments are logos arguments?? lol [Seb]: "No. It's a logos argument." ✅ Outright false; liar; deceiver; mentally incapable of the effort required to address arguments in good faith In reality, and as I already said, [Seb]: ""Basic decency" as a reason for using Regime-endorsed pronouns is definitionally a pathos argument; it is a fallacious appeal to emotion used by mental weaklings." Seb is here pretending that an appeal to "decency"☆ is not part of a pathos fallacy (appeal to emotion), but saying, "Basic Decency", assumes that the listener is *not* appealing to "basic decency" and is therefore not "decent" in a way which most people *would* be (also a sub-fallacy of «argumentum ad populum»). He is assuming that it is "decent" to be "nice" to delusional weirdos by taking part in their delusions, which itself is part of a fallacy of the "noble lie" (lying to people because it has short-term "good" benefits). Even his sub-arguments are fallacies on top of fallacies. He cannot escape that this appeal to *emotion* (pathos argument) is, "intended to cause the recipient of the information to experience feelings such as fear, pity, or joy, with the end goal of convincing the person that the statements being presented by the fallacious argument are true or false, respectively." ☆Appeals to decency themselves are a common fallacy, by the way: http://www...HqIfiL/its_common_decency.html The simple and short reality is that whether or not it is "decent" (a pathos argument) to lie to people does not negate the fact that those people are being lied to. That is, a "transwoman" will *never* be a woman, and a "transman" will *never* be a man, no matter how badly you feel for these delusional people. Using the proper pronouns of these delusional people based on "decency" (a pathos argument) is part of the leftist's over-valuing of "harm" and "fairness" in Moral Foundations Theory — leftists being highly susceptible to pathos fallacies. Even now, Seb's pathetic leftism is probably stirring him into another pathos argument. "Don't you care about these poor people? Just lie to them!" Yes, I care, and therefore I do not lie to them. Truth is the greatest care provider. Sebbish Lysenkoism, meanwhile, requires these pathos arguments and deceptions because the truth is to them as a cross to a vampire. [Seb]: "a rabbit hole of conspiratorial thinking" ✅ Is learning disabled ✅ Suffers from IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia (Seb, The Autistic Koala) ✅ Is mentally incapable of the effort required to address arguments in good faith As I said, "Seb is too stupid to acknowledge this error, so he'll have to ignore the error, obfuscate via semantics ("[That's not what I said! Please forget what I said!]"), or deflect ("[No, u!]")." And, "Conspiratorial thinking" is a though-terminating cliché that works only on mentally weak cretins such as Seb. For idiots such as Seb, if you simply say, "That's a conspiracy theory!" their mind will shut off. They see a forbidden door and go no further. In reality, I know far more on this issue than Seb is mentally capable of knowing. By his own admission, my write-ups are simply too long for his tiny brain to comprehend — despite the bullet points and summaries and the re-summaries that are even shorter. But he, being wholly ignorant, figures that his ignorance must be due to the "conspiratorial thinking" of those who simply know more than he knows. Again, as a product of Regime propaganda, Seb is *incapable* of clicking my links to the primary material or learning these truths. Seb *must* be told the truth *only* when it has first been approved and re-narratived by the Regime. He *must* have a Regime mediator. He **will not accept** narratives which have not first been published by the Guardian or the BBC. Even now, the Regime has started issuing talking points on these things, but they are being intentionally quiet about them because this keeps useful idiots such as Seb in the dark and in the early stages of the Celebration Parallax. So Seb does not even know the correct Regime talking points yet. In a few months, he'll be repeating them like he invented them. In short, all Seb would have to do to know the truth is read my comments — already made — but instead he can only drag people into these petty disputes where respondents have to constantly wonder if they're using too many words for his little boy's mind. He is incapable of the dedicated effort that that would require and instead needs you to hold his hand through the primary school of introductory information — and he'd fight you stupidly and stubbornly at every step only to tell you that he didn't do his homework anyways because you weren't nice to him. And while fools supposedly bring you down to their level and beat you with experience, Seb somehow manages to always lose his home field advantage.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jun 24 04:08:48 Oh! Sorry, Seb! Too many words! And too mean! Sam insults you less! How about this: Why you always lyin'? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIWai4acAhw
Seb Member	Sat Jun 24 04:43:45 Cc: There's no lies or distortion. You just made a mistake. It happens (in your case a lot).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jun 24 04:54:24 Here is the thread, why star wars failed: http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=87149
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jun 24 07:42:01 Awesome! Further proof that Seb's awful points have been going on for years: "Cherub is unable to disentangle that the film is definitely intended to interpret Holdo as being a leader with an accurate portrayal of leadership, which is the most Autistic thing ever." Seb's perception of leadership is total incompetence. I guess it shows that his own leaders taught him to be awful at life, or it reflects that his perceptions are so autistic that he cannot correctly perceive complex dimensions in others. [Seb]: "There's no lies or distortion." Oof. Seb's little island of rhetorical strategies just gets smaller and smaller. Seb.. ✅ Is incapable of good faith, preferring to.. • ✅ project, • ✅ distort, • ✅ straw man, and • ✅ be intentionally dense when he realizes that he'd have to actually have a position outside of the Regime's Lies and distortions are all you have, Seb. Everyone here knows it. You are tolerated because you're the "heel" trope. Everyone knows you're a brick wall, but sometimes it's good to bounce ideas off of a brick wall, since it's like a glimpse into the left-wing psychopathy. The mind of the leftist is a pitiful thing. Consider yourself like Juan Williams or Jessica Tarlov on Fox News or Ian of TimcastIRL. They're just retarded leftists that are there to have their talking points made fun of. It's easier to have these heels around than to have one of the other hosts asphyxiate themselves to simulate leftwing rhetoric. That's what you are, Seb. A Poe's Law bot. A heel. I do hope that IRL you're at least a big fish in your tiny pond, as small and pathetic as that would mean that pond would have to be. Bless your heart. :)
Seb Member	Sat Jun 24 10:02:05 Cherub Cow: Sam doesn't insult me less, but it is possible to decipher what it is he is saying from his insults. 95% of your posts are statements about what you think about me, and I'm really sorry but you are never going up convince *ME* that my own views are different to what I know them to be, so they are kinda irrelevant.
Seb Member	Sat Jun 24 10:03:44 "That's what you are, Seb" And you are a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jun 24 22:17:44 (TLDR at the end) [Seb]: "And you are a crazy conspiracy theorist." "Theatricality and deception. Powerful agents to the uninitiated, but we are initiated." http://imgur.com/a/d8uqh9d lulz. :D Seb is just going to keep repeating that thought-terminating cliché as a guard against his own ignorance. He likely doesn't even know what a thought-terminating cliché *is* or why it's so pathetic that he's using one as a matter of course, though he'll probably check the Wiki page now to pretend he's known all along that these are the thought patterns of totalitarian subjects — warned about in introductory social psychology textbooks that he's long forgotten to his detriment. XD (For convenience, see Robert Jay Lifton's "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of 'brainwashing' in China"). [Lifton]: "The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism#Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 So, for instance, I provide verifiable links such as these (as done above): "• the WEF shows the exact layout of [ESG's] existence[/function] ( http://widgets.weforum.org/esgecosystemmap/index.html#/ ) "• The asset managers who created ESG show the same layout (page 11; http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/events/2004/stocks/who_cares_wins_global_compact_2004.pdf )" ..and Seb does not even address them. He likely did not even explore these links! And why would he? They would be indecipherable to him without a Regime mediator! How can a sycophant navigate the next layers of the Celebration Parallax without a mediator!? How could he understand the gravity of trillions of dollars when he struggles with "5x3"!? Behold! Sebbish incompetence! Seb simply says, "crazy conspiracy theorist", and he lets the diarrhea roll out of his pant legs like Beria before Batitsky. This is another of Seb's disingenuous tactics. Because he is cognitively impaired, he treats debate as an «à la carte» menu, always selecting the most easily addressed and/or most easily distorted positions. He'll take some phrase out of context and read nothing around it. He'll re-state your words with his own corrupt language. The wandering Jew has a finite program of mental governance. *** As another exercise in tracking Seb's disingenuousness, when he responds to one of your comments, look at the sections of your post that he wholly evades. These Sebbish decisions represent the limits of his cognitive investment as well as the vulnerabilities in his arguments which he must evade for a rhetorical "win" (read as, "deception"). *** [Seb]: "but it is possible to decipher what it is he is saying from his insults." Seb.. ✅ Is learning disabled ✅ Suffers from IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia (Seb, The Autistic Koala) What's consistently funny about Seb's retorts is that he cannot help but admit that his retardation keeps him from understanding my insults. I mean, is this insult complicated? "[Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, projection bot, gas-lighter, and straw man argument generator]" No; it's not complicated; it's purely descriptive. You don't need special skills of deconstruction to understand what a useful idiot or a sycophant is. It's literally describing what he *does* and what he *is*. It is no more indecipherable than describing the color of a thing. But Seb, being retarded, calls these insults "[im]possible to decipher", seemingly unaware that this task of interpretation is impossible **to him alone**. Anyways, intellectually dismantling Seb again has been fun, as usual. The fruits of this is an expanded list of bullet points that describe the behavior of the Regime sycophant. By Poe's Law logic, whether Seb is truly retarded or just pretending to be retarded, when he is taken as an anthropologically removed subject of inquiry (i.e., Seb taken as a mere NPC and test subject to examine as a novelty, like gods examining ants), engaging with him can be like interviewing a confined sociopath or a Khmer Rouge war criminal. If you want to understand the psychology of a Communist intellectual under Pol Pot who found himself under the scrutiny of an AK-wielding Khmer Rouge child soldier, who tasks the intellectual with digging his own burial ditch, look no further than Seb. Seb has ample warning to not become that doomed man, but he can only say, "conspiracy theorist!" TLDR: If you didn't read this thread series, no worries! I'll make a thread describing the psychology of the left-wing useful idiot and Regime sycophant. It will be depersonalized from Seb so that people can see this behavior in many such cases.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 25 02:34:50 Cc: You do you. Until you can get your point across succinctly and convince me I'm not just going to be wasting my time reading four pages of you calling me names, it's not worth my time. I like the green ticks, given you just use them to signal confirmation bias and adhom it's a great tool to visually skim through what to ignore.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 25 05:22:06 The only conclusion left to be drawn from this is that you are in on it seb. You support the WEF/ESG. Everytime one of you idiots say “conspiracy theory” to deacribe the things they talk about achieving, openly on their websites, it is a dogewhistle to signal to the other useful idiots, collaborators and traitors. Even based in the simplest description i.e the worlds most powerful and richest people unite their forces to change the world according to their grand design, and create the leaders of tomorrow. That alone is enough, for anyone sane and not confused to resist the unelected. Yet you can only muster a screechy sound when they buy twitter and want to send humans to mars.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 25 16:42:32 Nim: Oh yeah totz. Thought you were too, because I thought you were there at the last meeting. Hard to see under the robes. Seriously reminds me of how during lockdown I had s plumber come to fix something and he spent s long time telling me Gates was trying to sterilise the world with vaccines because of this video clip of him admitting it. https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero/transcript
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jun 26 01:17:01 lol. Seb basically admitting that he supports the Gates Foundation XD [Seb]: "it's not worth my time." [Seb]: "ignore" I know you can't read, Seb. You don't have to keep repeating it. Move along. [Nim @ Seb]: "You support the WEF/ESG." That must be so. It'd be interesting to do one of those state-controlled polls where you ask if Sebbish people would prefer totalitarianism, except, instead of calling it "totalitarianism", the pollsters just use euphemisms such as "global governance" to make poll-readers appear to desire it (WEF's "global governance" graphic http://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1Gb0000000LHN2EAO ). Seb would definitely agree with global governance initiatives, and when the news published the findings, media could even unmask the phrase by saying, "Most people prefer totalitarianism," and Seb would say, "Looks like all the paperwork is in order." I've mentioned this before, but it's basically C.V./résumé deception. People like Seb fall for the C.V. language even though it's pure euphemism and distortion. For example: • [C.V. language]: "Invested over a half-decade on positive developments in human capital for a political-action group. Personally oversaw initiatives in personnel reallocation, resolving conflicts between diverse peoples to bring about equitable outcomes". ✅ Seb-approved • [Plain reality]: "5 years experience as serial murderer and executioner for the Bolshevik Red Guard. Killed over 1,000 kulaks personally." ✅ "conspiracy theory" Both situations describe the same thing, but the Autistic Koala (Seb) cannot reconcile the two language patterns, since he cannot see the truth beyond metaphors, taking the metaphor as the thing in itself (his "[math is not a language]" error). All Seb would have to do to see the effects of the euphemism-manipulation is to look at the harsh realities that it disguises (in the above example, checking to see what a Bolshevik Red Guard *did*), but he's like Faust in his library: possessing a grave-digger morality, shuffling papers around and never looking at the world itself to learn of it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 26 04:40:43 Seb Cool story, but you need to be specific about where in the transcript we can find it. "1. COVID-19 was the test of social responsibility – *A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world*. There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health, which demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility." http://www...lusive-and-sustainable-cities/ What covid showed the WEF is that people are willing to make all kinds of sacrifices and live under restrictions in exchange for what they believed was safety. They believe they can capitalize on the climate hysteria, they have been fueling. They call it "social responsibility", but what they are talking about is social shaming. Responsibilities are regulated with shame or prison, frequently both.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 26 04:59:24 CC The man has spent his entire life in the academia-state complex. He defends every woke talking point and as you know, this state of business has severely deteriorated over the years. He used to hold sane views. The tragedy is that people in STEM, unlike those in the humanities are not generally political, so their politics doesn't color their work. They are thus so much easier to conquer, as they do not have a proper intellectual immune system. Unfortunately not the bravest group of people either, so even those that would agree are cowered and mobbed into silence. *sob* I just want to do physics! *sob*
Seb Member	Mon Jun 26 05:45:12 Nim: Somewhere in the video, he's talking about reducing global population (i.e. through natural process of demographic transition from having loads of babies few of which survive) and says "If we do a really good job with vaccines, with public health, with..." Naturally people have seized on this to mean "ZOMG! He said it! He said vaccines are sterilisation tools". Which eh, isn't what he said. He's saying when infant mortality rate drops, people's behaviour changes and population growth slows. This ERG conspiracy stuff is exactly the same: wilful misinterpretation of what has been said.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 26 05:53:38 "What covid showed the WEF is that people are willing to make all kinds of sacrifices and live under restrictions in exchange for what they believed was safety. They believe they can capitalize on the climate hysteria, they have been fueling. They call it "social responsibility", but what they are talking about is social shaming. Responsibilities are regulated with shame or prison, frequently both." No, just no. Firstly, climate change isn't hysteria, it's an objectively real phenomenon causing a huge amount of harm that needs to be addressed. Secondly, social responsibility means voluntary. Is there any reason why the WEF, a body which is a lobbying group for the biggest multinational companies who have, you know, largely been lobbying against climate change policy for decades, would be pushing for voluntary measures over direct regulation? Just replace WEF with Big Tobacco and you start to understand this is the exact opposite of what you think it is. They are pushing ineffective approaches that minimise the impact on their business plans by shifting away from regulation on business towards diffuse and impossible to implement voluntary approaches that will have minimal impact on demand, not creating a shadowy world control system. Thirdly, one of the ways Tuberculosis was put out of circulation in Europe was the widespread stigmitisation of spitting in the street. Are against that public health policy intervention?
Seb Member	Mon Jun 26 05:54:12 Nim: "The man has spent his entire life in the academia-state complex." Incorrect. How many times do I have to tell you that?
Seb Member	Mon Jun 26 05:55:36 Nim: "The tragedy is that people in STEM" LOL. Yeah, obviously the fact I've been on this politics forum talking politics and political philosophy long before I got into STEM is besides the point here. Nim, you are such a moron some times.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 26 06:00:45 "Ah, yes, ok, you finally convinced us there *is* a strong evidential base for <strikethrough> Climate Change </strikethrough> smoking causing cancer. Should we <Strikethrough> decarbonise the economy </Strikethrough> ban smoking in public places and disincentivise the sale of cigarettes with high taxes? Well, what Covid -19 shows is we don't need to do that. Huge numbers all around the world voluntary underwent great sacrifices and displayed great social responsibility; so we believe a better and more effective approach would not be to heavily regulate <strikethrough>the carbon economy</strikethrough> tobacco sales. What we need to do is make sure people are well informed and make socially responsible decisions through voluntary mechanisms, not hard and disruptive regulatory approaches. ^does this sound at all familiar yet?
Seb Member	Mon Jun 26 06:02:22 Yeah, obviously what a lobbying group combined of the worlds biggest multinationals want to do is suppress demand. You see it every time, big businesses calling for higher taxes, lower economic activity, fewer customers. It's a well known problem. Muppets the pair of you.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 26 08:09:02 “”Naturally people have seized on this to mean” People of your brand of stupid, who are really bad at reading comprehension, sure. “No, just no.” Yes, literally, I put t “Firstly, climate change isn't hysteria” I wrote “climate change hysteria”, not that climate change is a hysteria. There you go seb, could not walk 2 steps before you run into trouble reading and comprehending. I mean you really fucked up a very simple concept here. There is a “thing” that is a real phenomenon and then there are deluded people being hysterical about it. God have mercy on you seb. “social responsibility means voluntary” BlackRock and Vanguard manage 309 trillion USD. They are significant stakeholders of every major company, tech company, film studio, you name it, they are there. I have no idea what you think “voluntary” means in this context. Their power isn’t absolute, but their influence is massive. Put bluntly, two companies “own everything”. “would be pushing for voluntary measures over direct regulation?” So NOW you see a problem? You think, I or anyone else thinks these entities care about the environment? What a massive strawman! Had you read some of the stuff CC writes, you would have understood this is about what it is always about, power, money and control. “Incorrect.” Why don’t you post your linkdin profile and people can decide for themselves, 4 years at a management firm doing work for the state, the rest is in academia, government or the state function you are working for now. “Yeah, obviously the fact I've been on this politics forum” I am talking about STEM in general in that paragraph. You are more the kind of person that takes part in and instigates the struggle sessions rather than be a victim of them. “Thirdly, one of the ways Tuberculosis was put out of circulation in Europe was the widespread stigmitisation of spitting in the street. Are against that public health policy intervention?” I will judge specific policy based on the evidence for or against that specific policy. What I *am* against as a matter of principle is the unholy union the WEF is creating between mega corporations and the state. So, once we have dealt with your fallacious arguments, straw men and corrected your reading failure, you basically agree with what we are saying. Any reasonable person who isn't an authoritarian goon/useful idiot or associated henchman, would have problems. It is thus good news that your problem is merely unsound logic and good ol' stupid, rather than deep moral flaws.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 26 10:53:51 Nim: "People of your brand of stupid, who are really bad at reading comprehension, sure." I mean this (your) sentence makes a lot of sense given I'm literally saying that is an obviously stupid reason, you and CC are making absurd comments about WEF; and you've engaged on a series of self congratulatory posts based of an inability to understand the difference between discourse and culture. But sure. Irony died some time back so do keep it coming nim. "BlackRock and Vanguard manage 309 trillion USD. They are significant stakeholders of every major company, tech company, film studio, you name it, they are there. I have no idea what you think “voluntary” means in this context. Their power isn’t absolute, but their influence is massive. Put bluntly, two companies “own everything”." FFS, what has that got to do with the price of fish? You post a link that talks about how individuals sense of social responsibility during COVID was mobilised to deliver public health outcomes; they are offering THAT model (reliance on individuals voluntary behaviour changes as opposed to market regulation) as an alternative to market regulation for climate change. It's the exact opposite of some nefarious system of social control leveraging climate change "hysteria" (what hysteria) and a bog standards strategy of regulatory capture that's been used for over a century: "We are responsible, don't regulate us, instead lets trust our consumers to change our corporate behaviour through individual purchasing decisions - lets not do anything rash like regulate us companies in ways that might hurt shareholder value". You said initially: "They believe they can capitalize on the climate hysteria, they have been fueling." No, no, you have it 100% the wrong way around. What they are doing is *deflecting* political concern about climate change away from any kind of policy response that would impact on their businesses. "power, money and control." Yeah, but in the opposite way that her loopy mind thinks and that you are getting on board with. She thinks they are a global shadow government trying to set up systems of control and coercion - in fact they are the exact opposite: a corporate lobby system to stand off against intergovernmental organisations and push govts away from regulatory controls or harmonised approaches to tax - they want LESS control and state intervention not more. But to influence govt they try to dress that up as though they are totally interested in addressing the problem - just, you know, as long as whatever is done doesn't damage their business. "Why don’t you post your linkdin profile" Gosh Nim, why on earth haven't I done that Nim? Could it be, Nim, because on this board there is a certain scumbag, Nim, who has repeatedly insinuated I'm a paedophile, Nim, and would, in a second, Nim, start spamming my employer for shits and giggles, Nim? You have as much evidence I've got a track record in STEM and the Government - so if you are willing to believe those you can be willing to believe that I have private sector experience also. "I am talking about STEM in general in that paragraph." Yeah, because, you know, all the other STEM folks in this conversation. "What I *am* against as a matter of principle is the unholy union the WEF is creating between mega corporations and the state." Nothing unholy about it, it's just capitalism same as it ever was. It's very, very boring and happens at all levels. There is nothing particularly special about it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 30 09:31:08 "But sure. Irony died some time back so do keep it coming nim." You call what you are doing "irony" if you want, but every time you project your straw men I will send them back as revealing of your own psychology, no one else. "what has that got to do with the price of fish?" Two companies have a stake in every major corporation and they have ideas about how the world should work. I feel like explaining why this is problematic to someone who screeches about tech companies shouldn't be necessary. And it isn't as you explain, you understand the problem just fine. But debate me bro, gonna debate you bro! "voluntary behaviour changes" There is that word again "voluntary" that you clearly and beyond a shadow of a doubt do not understand. Which is quite the thing in the context of a pandemic. What they are saying in context is that fearful people are willing to do things they normally would not consider. You are a sheep, which is why you think acting out fear is "voluntary". "No, no, you have it 100% the wrong way around. What they are doing is *deflecting* political concern about climate change away from any kind of policy response that would impact on their businesses." You find your own version of the problem, but at the same time wonder confusedly what the problem is with two companies having such massive influence on every major corporation and national government. Just go google how many national and corporate leaders come out of their global leadership program. "they want LESS control and state intervention not more" You are again, splitting the same problematic hair, while at the same time wondering what the problem is. "Could it be, Nim, because on this board there is a certain scumbag, Nim, who has repeatedly insinuated I'm a paedophile, Nim, and would, in a second, Nim, start spamming my employer for shits and giggles, Nim?" I already have your contact information including your linkdin profile, Mr T. Hence why I know that you have spent your 18 out of 23 years in the academia-state complex and are therefor pants on fire lying. I don't believe anything you say, I verify. At any rate your concerns are totally unwarranted, I have had your contact information, in extension your wife's, even seen your wedding pictures, for many years. Your concern about what I would do with such information is de-de-delusional to say the least. I would rather masturbate for the 5th time than to try to cancel you. It's just not my style, as I have screeched about it on this forum on behalf of people I disagree with, even people I detest. You see, even in that group of detestable people, you are not at the top. Sorry to disappoint you, you delusional crazy person :) "Nothing unholy about it, it's just capitalism same as it ever was. It's very, very boring and happens at all levels. There is nothing particularly special about it." No it does not happen at all levels (!), and it is very special as it undermines democratic rule, this is basically one of the pillars of fascism. Even if we take what you say at face value, that the problem isn't new, the scale certainly is, the fact that it isn't new thus...hur...dur... is a fallacious argument, old does not make it less problematic. Does not mean the scale of the threat is static like background noise.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 30 09:36:25 Nim: "There is that word again "voluntary" that you clearly and beyond a shadow of a doubt do not understand. Which is quite the thing in the context of a pandemic. What they are saying in context is that fearful people are willing to do things they normally would not consider. You are a sheep, which is why you think acting out fear is "voluntary"." Listen you tit, the point is not that they want people to behave in a certain way, so "voluntary" shall become mandatory. They frankly couldn't give two shits if everyone was burning coal for shits and giggles. Great: excellent market for coal. The important part is "leave it to individual choice, trust the people to satisfy their demands responsibly, don't regulate supply.". The important word here absolutely is "voluntary" - the outcome they seek is "No regulation on supply". Not reducing climate change. Do you get it now?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 30 10:02:35 "Listen you tit, the point is not that they want people to behave in a certain way, so "voluntary" shall become mandatory." Incorrect, they do want people to behave a certain way. "They frankly couldn't give two shits if everyone was burning coal for shits and giggles" Already discredited. For the second time, nobody believes they care about anything other than their own money, power and influence. That is the implication of me saying "they believe they can capitalize on the climate hysteria, they have been fueling". They are powerful people who think highly of their intellect, it is a law of human nature that such people think they know the best way to organize, everything. Let me phrase this on it's own, since you have such trouble reading: It's not about the climate, the climate is just the latest thing they can use to further their own agenda. Do you think travel companies charging your 200 Euro extra to "climate compensate" are doing it for the environment? No you idiot, they just found a way to monetize climate anxiety. Climate change is a massive gift for these people, it transcends borders and barriers. Do you get it now?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 30 10:08:36 So Sebs entire counter argument to the WEF is his own mutated understanding of what *he* think people are saying "motivates" the ESG and WEF people, muH EnVIronMenT!. He does not disagree that their influence is problematic, even if he is ambiguous and wishy washy about asserting it clearly. He identifies problems, but then waves them away as "not new", adamntly saying we have misunderstood the reason for why it is problematic. Which as I explained is his own sebbed up reading of what is being said. Classic seb style "debate".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 30 10:17:41 I would add legacy to the things they care about. There is no mistaking ESG/WEF idea-complex, it is Communist China as a blue print for the world.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 30 11:49:59 "Incorrect, they do want people to behave a certain way." Sucker.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 30 11:57:23 They aren't playing 5 dimensional chess. Their agenda is simple: sell more shit at higher price while reducing their costs, and stop govt getting in their way. There's no complex set of plans for global control. It's just the same thing that's been going on since as long as commerce and govts have existed: "Trust us to self regulate, we are responsible, and if there are bad apples, well you can trust the buyers to behave responsibly". Mistaking this for the kind of elaborate schemes and agendas is nonsense. ESG isn't some hare brained scheme by big companies to force diversity or whatever, it's multinationals trying to get ahead of govts before govts come along with their own costly rules and regulations, and set out near unenforceable and toothless voluntary codes of conduct. That is all.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 03 00:40:23 "Do you think travel companies charging your 200 Euro extra to "climate compensate" are doing it for the environment? No you idiot, they just found a way to monetize climate anxiety." No. Quite the opposite. It is a defensive move, not an opportunistic move. They do it to pass on the costs of Emissions Trading Scheme Certificates which, as they may be required to provide. e.g. http://cli...en-deal/aviation-and-eu-ets_en They may also charge extra to apply stupid voluntary offsets (which often do not work). The former is an example of the kind of govt regulation companies seek to avoid when they propose voluntary measures. That 200 Euro charge represents either a bunch of lost profits from the additional sales they would get if prices were lower; or it represents a consumer surplus - the value a customer is willing to pay - which is going to whoever sold them the ETC rather than their margin. The latter is an example of the kind of "voluntary" scheme that can then be cited as a reason why govt. regulations such as an ETC scheme are not needed: "Look you can trust customers to pay for climate change by voluntarily buying offsets, you don't need to set up a big cumbersome ETC scheme" - and of course they can recoup some of the margin from a voluntary emissions scheme (e.g. buy a chunk of managed forestry - plant trees, sell off as an asset). Of course if too many of these schemes are revealed as obvious cons, then you need to start defending them by creating "standards" - e.g. it only counts as a carbon sink if it is held for 30 years (Ok pine is out, 30 year hardwoods, we can still flog 'em on). And THIS is why you have these big WEF initiatives. It is not shadow world govt. It is not about creating spurious demand for goods. It is not REALLY about opportunistically capitalising on "global hysteria". It is boring old defensive lobbying of the type that has been going on forever, only they are coordinating more in response to govts coordinating more. It absolutely did not come about as a form of clever cross-sale by airline companies thinking "cool, how can we sell climate change as a consumer experience".
Seb Member	Mon Jul 03 00:44:34 " it is Communist China " This had me laughing out loud. I mean it is the exact opposite: "no state regulations please so we can sell more shit". There are literally two things the WEF want from you: As an employee, work harder, for less money. As a consumer, buy more, for higher prices. So they can increase shareholder value. Beyond that, they really, really don't give a shit. Because that is what we have baked into law as the two outcomes that publicly owned companies are to do above all else, and made it the legal duty of those running those companies to deliver.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 03 03:43:53 [Nim]: "They are thus so much easier to conquer, as they do not have a proper intellectual immune system." Basically. A good humanities education does more for inoculation, though moldable young people may just leave as Marxists (e.g., wtb). This is why I've advocated for the polymath approach; don't just study STEM or humanities in university — study both. That's what I did. Seb thinks he's one of few STEM people in UP? Nope. He's just another example of someone who fell for the "specialize!" approach so that all of his classes would be identical. The result is tunnel vision and cultural ignorance. [Seb]: "Firstly, climate change isn't hysteria" [Nim]: "There you go seb, could not walk 2 steps before you run into trouble reading and comprehending." Lulz. I was going to point out the same thing. [Seb]: "This ERG conspiracy stuff is exactly the same: wilful misinterpretation of what has been said." Yikes. Seb can't even get the acronym correct in probably the first post where he's ever directly addressed the issue.. but he's claiming "misinterpretation"? This one was interesting: [Seb]: "Could it be, Nim, because on this board there is a certain scumbag, Nim, who has repeatedly insinuated I'm a paedophile, Nim, and would, in a second, Nim, start spamming my employer for shits and giggles, Nim?" If that was pointed at me in any way, Seb, just because you heartily support pedophiles as a direct consequence of your politics does not mean that I would dox you if given a chance. I've had ample opportunity to make fun of Jergul for being a fisherman (something that I've seen others point out in UP), but I never even took *that* bait... but you think I'd care about your IRL C.V.? Or your employer? Is this more projection? Is this what *you* would do to *me*? Which political camp sponsors "cancel culture" again? You should probably notice that my ad hominem arguments are all based on your ideology. Your ideology supports pedophilia, which is why I made that argument. This made me lol: [Nim]: "BlackRock and Vanguard manage 309 trillion USD." [Seb]: "FFS, what has that got to do with the price of fish?" What does the centralized management of the West's wealth have to do with anything?? XD XD XD I was responding to different Seb quotations with "false", but to save space I'll just list the most false of his false statements: • [Seb]: "It's the exact opposite of some nefarious system of social control" • [Seb]: "Secondly, social responsibility means voluntary." • [Seb]: "not creating a shadowy world control system." • [Seb]: "Huge numbers all around the world voluntary underwent great sacrifices and displayed great social responsibility;" [Seb straw man argument]: ""We are responsible, don't regulate us, instead lets trust our consumers to change our corporate behaviour through individual purchasing decisions - lets not do anything rash like regulate us companies in ways that might hurt shareholder value"." • [Seb]: "in fact they are the exact opposite: a corporate lobby system to stand off against intergovernmental organisations and push govts away from regulatory controls or harmonised approaches to tax - they want LESS control and state intervention not more" • "[Seb]: "Nothing unholy about it, it's just capitalism same as it ever was. It's very, very boring and happens at all levels. There is nothing particularly special about it." • [Seb]: "They frankly couldn't give two shits if everyone was burning coal for shits and giggles. Great: excellent market for coal." • [Seb]: "The important part is "leave it to individual choice, trust the people to satisfy their demands responsibly, don't regulate supply."." • [Seb]: "Their agenda is simple: sell more shit at higher price while reducing their costs, and stop govt getting in their way. / There's no complex set of plans for global control." • [Seb]: "ESG isn't some hare brained scheme by big companies to force diversity or whatever, it's multinationals trying to get ahead of govts before govts come along with their own costly rules and regulations, and set out near unenforceable and toothless voluntary codes of conduct." • [Seb]: "There are literally two things the WEF want from you: As an employee, work harder, for less money. As a consumer, buy more, for higher prices. So they can increase shareholder value." [Nim]: "There is that word again "voluntary" that you clearly and beyond a shadow of a doubt do not understand. Which is quite the thing in the context of a pandemic. What they are saying in context is that fearful people are willing to do things they normally would not consider. You are a sheep, which is why you think acting out fear is "voluntary"." Seb's semantic manipulation of "voluntary" is a huge tell by him. It basically invalidates his entire pro-ESG argument, since he thinks that businesses can do whatever they want, up to and including putting you in the gulag. I'd remind that during the pandemic the "voluntary" method of "social responsibility" taken by these coalitions of businesses and government in the U.S. included such "voluntary" premises as.. • Labeling all counter-opinions as "disinformation"; banning, shadow-muting, and silencing dissent from the market using relationships with social media, news agencies, corporations, and local governments • Using government to push shot mandates which violated the Constitution • using backdoor approaches to mandates via government agencies who were pushed outside of their purview or had their purview expanded through lawfare • Simultaneously, having businesses treat these mandates as "law" in the short periods between states suing for stays (i.e., leaving the deadlines in place and not notifying employees that the law no longer supported the deadlines) • Not allowing exceptions to shots for religious reasons and otherwise dismissing all sovereign claims • Firing anyone who did not get shots — even where the deadlines were no longer supported by the law • Only allowing *certain* shots to "count" as "vaccines" and disallowing market competition (e.g., only allowing Moderna and Pfizer) • Freezing travel and setting up forced quarantines near airports for those who did not get these shots • Not allowing unemployment claims from anyone who was fired for refusing shots • Closing all small businesses which could potentially hire people who did not get the shots Much voluntary! So social responsibility! Apparently, in Seb's dysfunctional perception, it is "voluntary" for a whole-of-society approach to absolutely demolish any kind of dissent against a centralized government program. The Autistic Koala sees no distinction between this level of force versus societies simply requiring that people use a standard currency to make purchases. It's just part of living in a society, after all! What's the difference between a free state and a totalitarian state?? None, of course! ;) [Nim]: "So Sebs entire counter argument to the WEF is his own mutated understanding of what *he* think people are saying "motivates" the ESG and WEF people, muH EnVIronMenT!. He does not disagree that their influence is problematic, even if he is ambiguous and wishy washy about asserting it clearly. He identifies problems, but then waves them away as "not new", adamntly saying we have misunderstood the reason for why it is problematic. Which as I explained is his own sebbed up reading of what is being said." Good summation. And you see where we've arrived? Seb is now doing that thing where he makes false assertions about a topic that is wholly new to him. His typical routine is.. • Employ Cunningham's Law: make false assertions which have to be corrected, • Allow the people responding to him to teach him about the subject about which he previously demonstrated his total ignorance, • Slowly mold his (new) argument based on the correct information that others feed him, • Pretend that he was never wrong by using semantic distortions, obfuscation, and lies. I pointed this out regarding Jergul in my vaccine litigation thread: "Jergul Method" http://www...hread=88805&time=1636130551282 (basically the same thing I just bulleted) I even made the totalitarians thread so that I could list the UN's/WEF's ESG imperatives very clearly before people such as Seb knew about them. That way, when he starts his process of Regime lies, it's obvious; his talking points are based in his ignorance. I don't feel any obligation to play his game and "teach" him as he finally arrives at the start of the Celebration Parallax. I know that he is wrong and that he is lying through his ignorance. If he wants to learn, he can go to those threads. He does not, so he will not. He wants it spoon-fed. Take this sample statement: [Seb]: "The important part is "leave it to individual choice, trust the people to satisfy their demands responsibly, don't regulate supply."." It's wholly false. • They are funneling "individual choice" entirely into "green" programs, regulating non-ESG businesses into oblivion (removing that choice from the market), and cornering the market entirely within *their* preferred programs (i.e., the programs designated by the oligarchs and given higher ESG scores). • They do *not* trust individuals to behave responsibly, which is why they are using the wealth of these same individuals to fund NGOs, media outlets, and even popular movies to *convince* them of the "correct" actions. They cannot even leave the *actual* free market to make *movies* that oppose these narratives. And total control of media is the *soft* action they take. • They *absolutely* regulate supply. I have pointed this out repeatedly in the totalitarians thread through the asset-manager ESG trade policies (corporate frameworks which intentionally favor supply chains that meet ESG criteria) as well as government "sustainability" programs which perform the exact same function through international agreements such as the CPTPP and ASEAN. One of the *largest* points of these "sustainability" programs is to create a global interdependence of supply via massive market regulation. That regulation ultimately favors Chinese energy programs. But Seb probably just Googled "ESG" five minutes before his comments, read the first explanation he saw, and once again believed the C.V. language at face value. That's his level.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 03 03:55:30 Cc: The comment was addressed at Nim, as is pretty obvious. Nothing about my politics involves supporting paedophilia in any way, despite your baseless and frankly Goebbellian approach to political discourse. One more reason I really don't both engaging much with your posts.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 03 03:57:57 "since he thinks that businesses can do whatever they want, up to and including putting you in the gulag" I don't know why you think I think that given that I've been explicit that corps fear state power and what they are trying to do is convince states not to use it. If corps could put you into a gulag, the WEF would not exist in the first place. They wouldn't need to lobby govts.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 03 04:00:09 The point I am making is not "don't worry, corps are only asking you to submit to voluntary infractions of your liberty". My point is that you have fundamentally misunderstood what is happening. Shorn of the cant, what corps are saying is "don't regulate me bro, trust the consumer to do what's right off their own back".
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 03 04:31:22 [Seb]: "Nothing about my politics involves supporting paedophilia in any way" False. Your support of the "trans" delusion and your sacrifice of your protective instinct towards the natural development of children into adults is a direct implication of a broken morality which will permit *anything* — including the grooming of children by pedophiles. Your only argument here is semantic. I.e., you do not believe that it's "grooming" for children to be subjected to this pedophilia discourse. You are physically allowing pedophilia by masking your ideology with semantics. You will literally put children in the room with these pedophiles because it is government-approved by a board of bureaucrats who comfort you with stacks of paper. [Seb]: "I don't know why you think I think that given that I've been explicit that corps fear state power and what they are trying to do is convince states not to use it." This was in the "false" list above for good reason. It is purely a demonstration of your ignorance. In reality, the asset manager coalition is a direct leveraging of advancements that they have made through government collusion. At least six times now in this thread topic I have pointed out that the asset managers intentionally and openly work with governments to get what *they* (the asset managers) want. This is again directly stated on page 11 of their 2004 founding documentation. http://www...s_wins_global_compact_2004.pdf And in the same document again here: "We believe that governments and multilateral agencies should proactively consider the investment of their pension funds according to the principles of sustainable development, taking into account their fiduciary obligations to participants and beneficiaries" (p22 / p40). The intentional and open investment strategy is to force governments to *adopt* "sustainability" policies so that these funds can be trafficked back into the asset manager framework. They did this through Dodd–Frank, for instance, which greatly expanded their capture of government and formally instituted a market-wide "too big to fail" provision which allowed them to be protected from losses. ESG as an asset-manager and government coalition expands this "too big to fail" logic over ESG-favorable businesses and strategies. They *want* government to adopt their same corporate governance frameworks. They are *not* trying to be left alone by some pesky "fear" of "state power" — they are *using* state power to enact their policies and protect their strategy. You are flatly wrong, Seb. I have elucidated this repeatedly in the totalitarians thread. I will not further accommodate your ignorance by re-stating these things for your prevaricating mind.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 03 05:02:26 This dude just wants a baby on his nipple. He wants his baby to eat whatever hormone cocktail is coming out of his body — or just to be there doing nothing as a simulation. It gives him great pleasure to be a "mum". (weird pic warning) http://twitter.com/mikaminio/status/1675473919065612288 Here he is in an interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZq9UTJB37E Seb will support this, but then say, "Nothing about my politics involves supporting paedophilia in any way."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 03 06:03:27 Seb "Their agenda is simple: sell more shit at higher price while reducing their costs, and stop govt getting in their way." I don't care what you, in your total ignorance about these entities (someone who confusedly asks what the problem is with 2 companies having a stake in everything), has deduced is their "real agenda". I will just point out that you, with this sentence, completely undermined your "they are not trying to make you behave a certain way". Words, they mean things and stuff. That is how fucking dumb debate me bro is. "The comment was addressed at Nim, as is pretty obvious." lol, how anti-climactic was your hysteria about what I would do with your contact data! You fucking crazy person you :) Does that in any way color your warped model of who I am? I mean clearly I am a much better and saner version of what you have concocted right? Here I have been sitting on your info for at least 7 years. Like I told WTB, I would rather kung fu your asses like a man, than to write an angry letter to your employer like a little bitch karen. And to be honest, I just don't see myself traveling to the UK and finding you, just to kung fu you because you are an idiot on the internet. What makes you such a special idiot deserving of kung du? Nothing. You are an idiot among all the other idiots. Though obviously I extend the same invitation two for tea and tea for two, to you as I do to all my adversaries who suffer psychotic break down. CC "study both." Yes. I did opt for a hybrid engineer education back in the days. I always had too many (generalist) interests to be one thing. "It basically invalidates his entire pro-ESG argument" Litterally can not walk 2 steps without undermining himself as evident by the example "they are not trying to make you behave a certain way, they just want you behave like a good worker/consumer" (slave basically). Amazing. He has changed all the words to mean something else, as it is the only way his world will remain intact. "I'd remind that during the pandemic the "voluntary" method of "social responsibility" taken by these coalitions of businesses and government in the U.S. included such "voluntary" premises as.. • Labeling all counter-opinions as "disinformation"; banning, shadow-muting, and silencing dissent from the market using relationships with social media, news agencies, corporations, and local governments" Indeed this is classic seb, the very behavior that many many years ago made him fall from my eyes. Seb has done more to correct the undue and naive respect I had for his people, than everything else combined. He helped me coin the term PhDerp, which I believe is an original world first. Thanks seb. "They are funneling "individual choice" entirely into "green" programs" *shrug* it's not us, it's the market *shrug* Just to preempt seb, they can do this purely based on economic incentives as every government and their mother are through various means subsidizing green tech. ALOT of money to vaccum up. I mean this is the same seb who in a thread about nuclear power, posted a "study" from the investment firm Lazard. Failing to maky any inquiry into their methodology that would reveal that have taken 1 single US reactor design, which is the most expensive one and compared it to "green tech". But most importantly, Lazard is deeply invested in the green tech supply chain. Right, that is fairly important, and explains why they REMOVED the methodology in later version of the annual paper they release to market the USPs of wind and solar. lol yes. Seb who in one nuclear thread proudly proclaimed this is LITTERALLY what he has a PhD in. I'm just saying that if you can't trust a man in the thing he "litterally has a PhD in", all bets are off.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 03 08:43:42 Nim: "don't care what you, in your total ignorance about these entities (someone who confusedly asks what the problem is with 2 companies having a stake in everything" What I asked was "so what". My point in doing so is not to suggest aggregation of corporate power is benign. Rather it is to point out that this doesn't substantiate your point about the WEF being used to try run the world like communist China. I'm not ignorant of these entities. I've probably known about them longer than you have I'd estimate. And I probably know more about them than you do, given you seem to be drawing deeply on a bunch of mad conspiratorial thinking and an evident misunderstanding of what role they play. "Does that in any way color your warped model of who I am?" You are exactly what you present as. "I would rather kung fu your asses like a man, than to write an angry letter to your employer like a little bitch karen" Yeah, but if you are so fundamentally dishonest and without moral integrity as to make the insinuation in the first place, one can give zero credibility to this macho claims to integrity. If you were this kind of person, that would rather Kung Fu peoples ass than write an angry letter to an employer, you wouldn't be the kind of person than makes veiled and cowardly accusations about other people being paedophiles to stain their character. Not only would it be foolish to believe someones protestation of their good character who has already made obviously false statements, it would be doubly so when they have proven their character to be cowardly and dishonourable already.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 03 09:47:25 Nim: "Failing to maky any inquiry into their methodology that would reveal that have taken 1 single US reactor design, which is the most expensive one and compared it to "green tech"." A. Factually incorrect statement of the methodology B. As we covered at the time, using very old cheap projects from the 70s that you literally cannot build because some of the materials used (asbestos etc.) are illegal, and the supply chain doesn't exist, is not a reflection of the cost of a new project today (which is what the purpose of the report was). This is the problem with top down conspiratorial thinking. You start looking for confirmation of your paranoia (the greens, the evil greens, they are blocking the nuclear) and stop thinking clearly. What killed nuclear was high interest rates to control inflation off the back of the oil crisis.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 03 19:11:22 [Seb]: "What killed nuclear was high interest rates to control inflation off the back of the oil crisis." Oof. Who controls the interest rates, Seb? In the States, the Fed is directly supporting ESG "sustainability" governance to cause massive market manipulation in ESG's favor. I've pointed out Janet Yellen being the Biden admin's sustainability czar. I have also pointed out that the IMF is conducting the same market manipulation along these "sustainability" frameworks, knowingly "predicting" specific national implosions which directly align with their evaluations of G-Index compliance. These are not passive actions, Seb. It's not just "happening". These are choices which are being made to direct Western energy into Chinese belt-and-road and BRICS nuclear and oil. [Seb]: "My point in doing so is not to suggest aggregation of corporate power is benign. Rather it is to point out that this doesn't substantiate your point about the WEF being used to try run the world like communist China." Here Seb goes moving goal posts again. Notice that now Seb is partially and sheepishly reigning in his personal Overton Window by admitting that there *is* a measure of force here ("not ... benign"), but he's moving back to another false statement: "[But it has nothing to do with implementing Chinese-style governance!]" Seb's total ignorance creates more false statements. And now, we'd have to do the work for him again, hand-holding Seb into how, in fact, this UN/WEF program uses Maoist strategies of social control, struggle session, color revolutions, mass line of action, and youth indoctrination. I'd have to again remind that these asset managers and their downstream corporations are employing "sustainability" governance *directly* on China's behalf, which means adopting frameworks that make them easier to deal with when working in China. We see this transparently all the time when an American movie is tailored for Chinese audiences (e.g., certain politics omitted, collectivism promoted), or when a corporation applauds itself for some big meeting where they pleased their Chinese franchises/factories/programs. Sebbish people would merely declare in C.V. language, "[Well, it makes it easier to deal with international law if they change their corporate frameworks to get into the Chinese market!]" — seemingly having no ability to connect that dot to the dot of **what it costs to incorporate China**. Seb would merely downplay the costs to buy himself more room to drag out deceptions. [Seb]: "I've probably known about them longer than you have I'd estimate" [Seb, in the same thread]: "This ERG conspiracy stuff" Seb wants to pretend that he knows about these issues, while, simultaneously, he proves through his constant errors that he has no clue. I wonder what we'd find in Seb's UP history if we were to search for ESG? Any hits before today? Any engagement which shows comprehension? Again, it's a Cunningham's Law deception. It's like a test-hacking undergrad disguising his blatant ignorance by asking pre-exam probing questions to get grad students to reveal actual exam questions; it allows him to learn only what he needs to "pass" the test, whereas any time he has to demonstrate knowledge outside of the questions that he has "hacked" through probing, he produces error after error. Your errors mount, Seb. You are not deceiving anyone. You can re-phrase your list of errors above (listed in comment "Mon Jul 03 03:43:53") to again obfuscate chronology (i.e., obfuscate when you learned which thing), but they are permanent fixtures of the ignorance that you have demonstrated here. [Seb to Nim]: "you wouldn't be the kind of person than makes veiled and cowardly accusations about other people being paedophiles to stain their character." What if it's not to "stain" your character, Seb? What if your support for pedophilia is just a natural consequence of your ideology? You can clear it up right here, Seb. What did you think of that picture of a man "chest-feeding" his adopted child? (here again; content warning) http://twitter.com/mikaminio/status/1675473919065612288 It's simple: Is your reaction a visceral disgust from the immediately recognized Sartre-bad-faith of this play-acting deviant, or did you rationalize it as part of your belief in "inclusivity"? Do you support men adopting children and having those children suck their male nipples, Seb? Simple question. "I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXI21S4ZWJU
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 01:00:21 Cc: Yes, yes. Interest rates were hiked globally in 70s because the ESG movement. Yellen has a TARDIS or something.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 01:00:59 Like I said, you are so parochial.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 02:34:53 Cc: "Notice that now Seb is partially and sheepishly reigning in his personal Overton Window by admitting that there *is* a measure of force here" Reading comprehension fail. The problem I have with concentrated wealth has fuck all to do with your hallucinated idea that companies are trying to coercively impose global social policy. Let me explain again: There are real problems that people (at least those who aren't stupid) recognise as problems. Often those problems involve big business in some way. Sooner or later people start to get their representatives in govt to try and address those issues. Often using the main tools they have, which is regulation. This causes a problem for big business, because it hits their profit margins either directly or indirectly. So big business attempts a form of regulatory capture: pretend to care about the problem and engage in performative but ineffective actions that tend to address the problem, in reality the objective is to convince governments they do not need to use regulatory powers. The. End. Big business doesn't care about climate change, it just wants govt not to regulate their pollution. Big business doesn't care about sustainability, they just want govt not to regulate their supply chain. Big business doesn't care about diversity or equality, they just want govt not to regulate their hiring policies and wages. So when they say "voluntary" (and correct, in relation to pandemic policy, it often wasn't voluntary, the state used its powers to drive behaviour changes, but that doesn't matter, it serves big business here to pretend otherwise) it is not a stealthy way to sell coercive policies. It is a stealthy way to try and sell complete inaction to address the problems. They *don't* have an agenda to try and force social policy, they have an agenda to try and block it. And occasionally big business will be *forced* by govt to do something: like shutting down obvious misinformation during a pandemic before the state decides to legislate for powers to regulate social media content (which would add huge costs to social media, and run the risk of never being repealed). Fundamentally, given your 100% opposition to pretty much any kind of progressive agenda, WEF is actually your ally. They want what you want: a laissez faire society where there's little to no state, no rules that prevent discrimination against ethnic minorities, queers and women (the last one I don't get, but you are on record for wanting to get rid of the civil rights act so *shrug* crazy is as crazy does). The problem is you are too fucking dumb to understand their strategy and tactics, so you howl at the moon instead, and invent elaborate conspiracy theories.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 04:27:36 "It's China, it's China, it's china at the door" screams CC. But it turned out... the woke... was coming from *inside the house*.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 04:33:14 "I wonder what we'd find in Seb's UP history if we were to search for ESG? Any hits before today?" Because the only people that talk about ESG are conspiracy nuts, and deeply boring technocrats. In 2015 building on the work of many many summits, the UN and national governments come up with the Sustainable Development Goals for concerted action. What does big business come along and do? "Hey govts, look, we have ESGs. They have standards and everything. We will use them to guide our investments. Don't regulate us bro, don't tax us. We got this." What does CC and the conspiracy nuts do? "ZOMG CHINAAAAAA!".
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 04:40:51 And yes, before you point out that ESG has been around before the 2015 sustainable development goals - this has all been a long tedious process and the SDGs had antecedents also. The idea it is being driven by China rather than the West is delusional. Far from trying to capitalise on "the climate change hysteria", what is actually happening is governments are responding to climate change and other environmental concerns, and business is responding to that the response by trying to neuter it, or so far as possible minimise the impact on business.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 04 05:40:26 "What I asked was "so what". My point in doing so is not to suggest aggregation of corporate power is benign. Rather it is to point out that this doesn't substantiate your point about the WEF being used to try run the world like communist China." But nobody said that *that* specifically substantiated it. You confused illiterate person. I reponded and dismissed your idea about what their agenda is, out of the gate. You are ignorant and dishonest, your analysis means nothing. "I've probably known about them longer than you have I'd estimate." At face value. Again, you don't understand simple words, you think "longer" and "better" are the same thing. Generally when people use primitive playground "arguments" like "I knew about things and stuff before you did", they lost the plot. "You are exactly what you present as." Just not what your warped mind projects, you didn't answer the question, you crazy person :) "Yeah, but if you are so fundamentally dishonest and without moral integrity as to make the insinuation in the first place" "you wouldn't be the kind of person than makes veiled and cowardly accusations about other people being paedophiles to stain their character." I have no idea what you have hallucinated. You need to provide reference. But I have never ever threatened you or anyone else with going crying to their mommy. According to the same ROE that you use to insinuate I am racist, sexist, some kind of social darwinist, obsessed with race and genetics or whatever it is that you said last time, I will address and undress you, sure. I will seize upon anywhere you slip up or misspeak, show you no charity or good will and construe your words in their darkest and most horrific translation. Don't like it? "you wouldn't be the kind of person than makes veiled and cowardly accusations about other people being paedophiles to stain their character." Well, again words and their meaning are important. You don't need to *believe* me, that is the wonderful thing with me having had your contact info for over 7 years, while most of the break down in civility has taken place. I have had 7 years of increasingly more hostile communication to do all the things you are/were afraid of. Additionally from where I stand, you have yourself stained your character and I have just observed and anthologized it, big difference. I am just reporting the truth as I see it :) "Factually incorrect statement of the methodology" I am betting that your memory is failing you badly here. In a thread about the costs of nuclear vs other stuff you posted The Lazard annual paper. I abandoned the thread when you did that and have repeatedly told you in those thread your input is useless and that you are not serious. That paper looks at exactly 1 reactor design, one of the Vogtle reactors. Even within an American context that Vogtle reactor is the most expensive nuclear reactor America ever built. It is not a world average cost, it isn't even an American average. Then they compare that costs with global average for wind and solar. For whatever reason (I like to think it was the feedback mail I wrote :)) Lazard now includes info about the Vogtle reactor that was missing as recently as last year. http://www...azards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf Missing in 2022 http://www.lazard.com/media/sptlfats/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf "Given the limited public and/or observable data set available for new-build nuclear projects and the emerging range of new nuclear generation strategies, the LCOE presented herein represents Lazard’s LCOE v15.0 results adjusted for inflation (results are based on then-estimated costs of the Vogtle Plant and are U.S.-focused)" "As we covered at the time, using very old cheap projects from the 70s that you literally cannot build because some of the materials used (asbestos etc.) are illegal, and the supply chain doesn't exist, is not a reflection of the cost of a new project today (which is what the purpose of the report was)." Even stranger then that you would post the Lazard paper on the Vogtle reactors from the 1970s, only that they are much more expensive compared to other US reactors as well as more recent reactors. Wrong on every account. *Which is of course bullshit, there are plenty of reports using more projects in the cost analysis.* My point was very clear, you can't even be trusted with the topic that you proudly claimed to be the contents of your PhD, as evident by the garbage you post uncritically to debate. You *literally* took one of the first google result of "cost of nuclear power" and just ran with it. Zero credibility on the topic you spent a decade on learning and teaching. Ain't that something?
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 06:34:28 Nim: 1. S:"“social responsibility means voluntary” 2. N: "BlackRock and Vanguard manage 309 trillion USD. They are significant stakeholders of every major company, tech company, film studio, you name it, they are there. **** I have no idea what you think “voluntary” means in this context. Their power isn’t absolute, but their influence is massive. **** Put bluntly, two companies “own everything” " [Emphasis added] 3. S: "what has that got to do with the price of fish?" 4. N: "Two companies have a stake in every major corporation and they have ideas about how the world should work." --- You absolutely were raising it DIRECTLY connected to the idea that the WEF were trying to coerce global social policy. You raised it in direct response and rebuttal to my post pointing out the the WEF text referring to "Social Responsibility" is coded language for "no regulation, rely on consumers voluntarily changing behaviour out of a sense of social responsbility"; and you directly connected the idea that their breadth and scale of holdings gave them influence rendered the meaning of "voluntary" suspect. When invited to explain how this was relevant, given that my point was that the WEF proposal was that there was no *need* to influence behaviour (e.g. through regulation) and that consumers should be left to their own choices, you re-emphasised the idea that they were two companies that had vast holdings and again asserted that they had "ideas on how the world should work" (the evidence is the contrary: they have no particular ideas on how the world in the sense you obviously mean should work other than that govts should get out of the way of consumers and companies) Later you went on to ellucidate your concept of the WEF text and agenda: ... "it is Communist China as a blue print for the world" You say I am illiterate, but you clearly can't string a train of thought together across a handful of posts!
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 06:36:24 Further, you say I am illiterate, but you some how read me pointing out the scale of Blackrock and Vanguards holdings as irrelevant to the point at hand, as being logically the same as "asking what the problem is". How can one argue with someone so ... lost ... as not to be able to follow their own argument over a matter of hours?
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 06:46:14 Nim: "That paper looks at exactly 1 reactor design, one of the Vogtle reactors." Yeah, a new build Westinghouse AP1000 pressurised water reactor. You say this was built in the 1970s - I think you have confused Vogtle unit 3 and 4 with Vogtle unit 1-2 (closed loop) "Even within an American context that Vogtle reactor is the most expensive nuclear reactor America ever built" Yes, that's the point. They are also the first power plants of the current generation, and the point is that (Jesus Christ, I can't believe I have to explain this again) the current scale of incredibly large PWR reactors are enormously expensive compared to the old boiling water and lower pressure/temperature PWRs that were built in the 1970s. So trying to benchmark the cost of new build power plants using the lifetime costs of reactors using fundamentally different technology, with fundamentally different materials, and fundamentally different labour and capital costs from the 19-fucking-70's is not a representation of what it would cost to build a nuclear power plant now.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 06:51:04 I also in that thread posted links to other papers, as I recall, showing the variation of different new build reactors and they are all the fucking same: Much higher costs than in the 1970s, because they are all by and large giant high temperature high pressure PWRs and as a result they all require enormously expensive high grade steel pressure vessels for which there is very little supply capacity and very little means to expand supply capacity. However this makes sense for the industry because if its going to be based on the IP they own, and privately financed, and there is relatively low demand for such large lumps of new capacity, it is much much better to offer a large, expensive but very capital efficient PWR than it is to offer lots of small cheaper ones. To compete in the 250MW capacity market, you need a fundamentally different technology than the IP that these companies own. Which in turn needs a different supply chain and workforce. And you keep ignoring this because it doesn't fit your stupid culture war narrative.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 07:24:13 S: "new nuclear plant designs are stupidly expensive because the industry has designed itself into an extremely poor fit to the market. It's not a contender as a result." N: "no it's really cheap, look at the 70's" S: "here's some metrics showing the levelised close of new nuclear build" N: "this methodology is flawed, it's based on the only nuclear reactor constructed in the last 30 years in the US, and that's the most expensive one ever" S: (facepalm).
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 07:29:32 Product. Market. Fit. SMR is what we need, but there's little in the way of proven, shovel ready designs. The shovel ready designs are shitty fit for a relatively free market where you are competing against small (renewable) generators with low barriers to entry, high interest rates, no public finance, and unproven/uncertain plant lifetimes with high (and still often underestimated) construction costs.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 07:31:25 *Shovel ready nuclear designs Basically current nuclear technologies on the market are commercially crap, irrespective of the benefits of the underlying physical mechanism and the commercial success of previous generations of technology. They either need to design a new itteration of BWRs. But GW scale PWRs are donkeys.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 07:59:14 As for your character: "But I have never ever threatened you or anyone else with going crying to their mommy" So ... I'm supposed to believe that you think it is fine to call someone a paedophile, that you think it is fine to try and convince other people that someone is a paedophile, but that you draw the line at trying to convince someone's boss that they are a paedophile? And I'm supposed to believe you when you say you absolutely wouldn't do that, even though you lie about people being paedophiles? And you think *I'm* the crazy person?
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 08:01:01 "that is the wonderful thing with me having had your contact info for over 7 years" Then you have no need to ask me to prove my credentials to you.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 04 12:12:09 N: "Seb only has public sector and academia experience." S: "incorrect as I have told you." N: "why don't you publish your details so I can confirm your career history and credentials" S: "Because you have a long history of bad faith, lack of integrity, and smearing me here, so I fully believe you'd seek to weaponise my contact details. If you believe me on academia and public sector, why not believe me private sector?" N: "I have had your real identity for over seven years and not used it" Err... so were you lying before, or now, or both?
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jul 08 03:47:56 Seb's latest false statements: • "Reading comprehension fail." • "hallucinated idea that companies are trying to coercively impose global social policy." • "So big business attempts a form of regulatory capture: pretend to care about the problem and engage in performative but ineffective actions that tend to address the problem, in reality the objective is to convince governments they do not need to use regulatory powers" • "Big business doesn't care about climate change, it just wants govt not to regulate their pollution." • "Big business doesn't care about sustainability, they just want govt not to regulate their supply chain. • "Big business doesn't care about diversity or equality, they just want govt not to regulate their hiring policies and wages." • "it is not a stealthy way to sell coercive policies" • "They *don't* have an agenda to try and force social policy, they have an agenda to try and block it." • "And occasionally big business will be *forced* by govt to do something: like shutting down obvious misinformation" • "Fundamentally, given your 100% opposition to pretty much any kind of progressive agenda, WEF is actually your ally." • "They want what you want: a laissez faire society where there's little to no state, no rules that prevent discrimination against ethnic minorities, queers and women (the last one I don't get, but you are on record for wanting to get rid of the civil rights act so *shrug* crazy is as crazy does)." • "But it turned out... the woke... was coming from *inside the house*." (partially true, partially false) • "Far from trying to capitalise on "the climate change hysteria", what is actually happening is governments are responding to climate change and other environmental concerns, and business is responding to that the response by trying to neuter it, or so far as possible minimise the impact on business." • "(the evidence is the contrary: they have no particular ideas on how the world in the sense you obviously mean should work other than that govts should get out of the way of consumers and companies)" • "The idea it is being driven by China rather than the West is delusional." • "What does big business come along and do? "Hey govts, look, we have ESGs. They have standards and everything. We will use them to guide our investments. Don't regulate us bro, don't tax us. We got this."" • "In 2015 building on the work of many many summits, the UN and national governments come up with the Sustainable Development Goals for concerted action." This last false statement in the list was funny because Seb realized that he lied and had to come back seven minutes later with a semi-correction comment.. which *also* made a false statement (i.e., he tried to correct his own lie and produced *another* lie): • [Seb]: "And yes, before you point out that ESG has been around before the 2015 sustainable development goals - this has all been a long tedious process and the SDGs had antecedents also." Do you think Seb could even spot his latest false statement there? He clearly just Googled after realizing he spoke out of his ass, clicked on a link, thought he got good information, and returned with more false information. He cannot even check his own statements correctly. And a funny Seb projection: "The problem is you are too fucking dumb to understand their strategy and tactics, so you howl at the moon instead, and invent elaborate conspiracy theories." The best part of this Seb projection is that Seb has offered no sources and no valid arguments. Do you see Seb posting a single link? Do you see him going into corporate framework documents? Has he shown that he has engaged with any material as even an undergrad student would show engagement with a daily reading assignment? No. Seb is incapable. Seb is like Joanie from Donnie Darko: http://youtu.be/a8hGEl2MOTo?t=28 "If you had actually read the short story, which, at a whopping 13 pages, would have kept you up all night..." Even despite Seb fancying himself an academic, he is incapable of backing his assertions through citation — citation being a bedrock for robust argument. He knows that his arguments have no robustness, so he evades and distorts. And, because he is so totally outmatched here, all of his false statements only mock his own intellect. He is like a 6th grader having a nightmare about defending a PhD thesis, but he didn't write anything, he has nothing to defend, and he is still a little boy a moment away from waking in a puddle. Meanwhile... What have I done? Totalitarians Thread 1: http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=89915&time=1654088485335 Thread 2: http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=89974&time=1656327448729 Thread 3: http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=90141&time=1658730585986 Thread 4: http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=90310&time=1662987565167 Thread 5: http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=90616&time=1668413002067 Thread 6: http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=90933&time=1676699561439 Thread 7: http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=91401&time=1684921561405 Thread 8: http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=91678&time=1688782671747 And his response here is just sad: [CC]: "I wonder what we'd find in Seb's UP history if we were to search for ESG? Any hits before today?" [Seb]: "Because the only people that talk about ESG are conspiracy nuts, and deeply boring technocrats." Seb even *admits* he has no clue what's going on with ESG and has never known of the subject before recently!.. but he projects that *I* am wrong about it! The Celebration Parallax is laid *so* bare, but Seb likely *still* does not even know what the Celebration Parallax *is*! I really am amazed by the narcissistic delusions of a person like Seb. He admits that he is wholly ignorant of the subject, but he nevertheless presumes that he is correct — and correct enough to chime in! He could not even maintain silence to hide his ignorance! He is so abysmally unable to begin his route through the Celebration Parallax! What is most hilarious about Seb's ignorant flailing is that because Regime media has been mostly silent on the issue, Seb does not even know which lies to tell! *I* am aware of the Regime's distortions and lies. They have already prepared a package of talking points, and I have itemized all of them (hoping to wrap that article soon). Seb is not using these talking points because he is ignorant of them. This means that he is trying to speak out of turn. But what does a Regime sycophant do if there is not a Guardian or BBC article to tell him what to think! Even the Regime's lowest-information propagandists are not telling Seb's lies because they are *so* *demonstrably* *false* that even *they* know that they cannot get away with them. Don't worry, Seb. The Regime will update your software soon. The lists of your false statements, however... well... those will remain. Your lies are not even fit for a local pub, as the regulars know not to trust you even with a correct presentation of time, since, in a mind like yours, it must first be decided whether it is advantageous to lie about the time before giving an answer. [Seb at Nim]: "So ... I'm supposed to believe that you think it is fine to call someone a paedophile, that you think it is fine to try and convince other people that someone is a paedophile, but that you draw the line at trying to convince someone's boss that they are a paedophile?" Lulz. More of the Autistic Koala's inability to understand a distinction. In this case, he sees no distinction between a mostly abandoned forum for a video game that does not even exist anymore.. and his real life job. He sees no distinction between the left's "cancel culture" and the right's boycotting. Because *he* would dox someone, he is afraid of being doxxed. This goes to the heart of the leftist's fear of firearms. He cannot even understand that a person would hold such power without ever using it. He trusts only the state with power, and the state is *most* likely to use it. And prove it, Seb. What do you think of that picture? Here again: (warning, "chest-feeding" pic again) http://twitter.com/mikaminio/status/1675473919065612288 Are you capable of disgust? Is there any point that "tolerance" finds a limit in you? Is there any line that you will hold to stop your conquerors?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jul 08 04:57:13 Yea this thread went past expiration, the moment I said I had his info, and he decided to double down on, not understanding the difference between the forum/arena and the life you have with your family. A manlet (resolution of conflict is when mommy steps in) by all accounts, projecting some of the worst aspects of toxic feminine cancel culture.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jul 08 06:53:40 "Yea this thread went past expiration" Definitely. He's just saying things now, and his Gish Gallop is getting too obvious. There are better ways to spend a weekend :)
Seb Member	Sat Jul 08 15:29:30 Cc: The sentence literally says "after many summits". I came back because I knew you would go "ahhh, but ESG predates SDGs". "Do you see Seb posting a single link?" Would that help? "Seb even *admits* he has no clue what's going on with ESG and has never known of the subject before recently!.." Comprehension fail. Let me elucidate for you: Until Nim started mee tooing you, I have not been aware of anyone talking about ESG here (remember, I ignore you most times). I spent a decade working in the UK Cabinet Office. Of course I know what ESG is. Cameron thought it was all jolly good stuff got his big society shit. It's rather boring technocratic attempt at regulatory capture. What I hadn't until now been aware of is that there's a vibrant school of wignuttery that sees in this something like the old bollocks the masons or Illuminati. "he sees no distinction between a mostly abandoned forum for a video game that does not even exist anymore.. and his real life job" Yup. That's right. My MO for online communication is to treat it and participants as real people engaging in a real communication. So when Nim starts calling someone here a paedo, I treat it much like someone down the pub suddenly loudly and publicly accusing someone of paedophilia without any evidence and obviously with the intent to incite some kind of backlash. It's hyper aggressive and a bit mental and such a person can't be trusted not to go further.
Seb Member	Sat Jul 08 15:35:05 Nim: This whole "mommy" thing says more about you than me. I dont think that you lying to my employer would be like going to your mom and asking her to help you out. I think it would be a substitute for an act of deliberate violence. You've already shown you are willing to lie to attack character. You yourself have said you would prefer to use Kung Fu. That's not an option for you. But trying to get me sacked or something totally would be in tune with the character you present: aggressive, confrontational and willing to try and resolve disagreements through doing harm to your interlocutor: by preference physical but clearly fine with reputational in this setting and likely wider if you had the means.
Seb Member	Sat Jul 08 15:37:25 Basically you act like a child, lashing out at those you disagree with verbally and seeking to do harm, either by deliberate offense or by attempted character assassination, while making a virtue of how your would prefer to do it physically. All of that is a very strong suggestion you would be the sort of person to try and defame someone.
Seb Member	Sat Jul 08 15:38:45 Even your idea of maturity is a child's idea of maturity: I wouldn't "run to mommy" and use my words to do harm, I'd use my physical strength because that's what grown ups have compared to me, a child".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jul 08 17:14:24 This is a bizarre little kabuki theater to obfuscate that you lied about your professional life. Just stop defending pedophiles seb and leave your employer out of your personal mess.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jul 08 20:38:01 [Seb]: "The sentence literally says "after many summits"." ..and is still false. :) You literally do not even know enough to know that your attempts to be correct are still false. :) "Would [citation] help?" — Seb, who has presumably been to university, asking if citation matters. What's funny about this is that for him it *doesn't* matter (i.e., he does not care if others post sources), and *that* is why he can make this comment unironically. Citation and truth does not matter to *him*, so he projects: "[Why would it matter to others?]" [CC]: ""Seb even *admits* he has no clue what's going on with ESG and has never known of the subject before recently!.." [Seb]: "Comprehension fail." Nope! You have demonstrated now at least 28 obvious errors regarding ESG. :) [Seb]: "I spent a decade working in the UK Cabinet Office. Of course I know what ESG is. Cameron thought it was all jolly good stuff got his big society shit." Oof. Seb revisionism. He admitted that he's never spoken of ESG here, and he's produced no less than 28 egregious errors in this thread alone which show that he's desperately Googling for talking points and cannot even correctly appraise which ones to use.. but he's now pretending to be an expert with a storied history of ESG knowledge. XD lol :D I said it already: it's the Jergul Method. He slowly learns of the subject through people making fun of his ignorance, attempts to ad hoc fix his previous statements so that his revised interpretations of his own statements can hold some glimmer of "truth", and, once he knows enough to falsify a debate, he pretends that he never changed his arguments and was right all along. :D So he's known of ESG all along! He's just never mentioned it! Trust me, bro! lol ;D [Seb]" "My MO for online communication is to treat it and participants as real people engaging in a real communication." Seb admits that his M.O. is retardation :'( And this is sad, too. It's one thing to maintain some level of IRL civility when engaging in a good faith discussion online, but it is quite another thing to not understand the division between IRL and forum and from this the built-in privacy dimensions that users of this forum respect. Seb, the Autistic Koala, conflates these two separate issues. This is natural, of course! I have pointed out for years that Seb grew up with the Panoptic slave's belief in Jeremy Bentham's social prison. For Sebbish/cowardly people, what happens online is totally enforceable by law (e.g., the slavish belief in "hate speech"). He truly believes that police will knock on his door for the very *suspicion* generated by some words exchanged here! It is no wonder that he is a coward! :D But again, Seb.. Prove it. What do you think of that picture? Here again: (warning, "chest-feeding" pic again) http://twitter.com/mikaminio/status/1675473919065612288 Are you capable of disgust? Is there any point that "tolerance" finds a limit in you? Is there any line that you will hold to stop your conquerors?
Seb Member	Sun Jul 09 04:22:14 Cherub Cow: Of course it's not false. Are you seriously saying the issues were never addressed by policies and communiqués prior to that one summit, and suddenly the SDGs sprang fully formed from a single summit?
Seb Member	Sun Jul 09 04:25:28 Nim: "that you lied about your professional life" I have done no such thing. If you have my details you can confirm that. So either you are lying about having my professional details, or you are lying about me lying. Either way, your unhealthy interest on my professional life and propensity to lie about it and weaponise those lies just makes me more confident you are the kind of weak character that would pursue a vendetta.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jul 09 04:45:40 [Seb]: "Of course it's not false. Are you seriously saying the issues were never addressed by policies and communiqués prior to that one summit, and suddenly the SDGs sprang fully formed from a single summit?" Oof. Again.. "You literally do not even know enough to know that your attempts to be correct are still false. :)" Because you do not know which part was false, you cannot even correct your error.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 09 05:37:20 CC ”but he's now pretending to be an expert with a storied history of ESG knowledge.” This is classic seb. He did this on block chain as well, made a bunch of basic fundamental errors and projections of strawmen in his sebbish style, then told us he had looked at and abandoned block chain as a tech decades ago when he was in university. He is like a pathetic self playing piano.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jul 09 06:08:19 Ouch. I just don't get the point of that. :/ Wtb seems well read on Žižek, whereas I've only seen a few lectures and quotations, so am I going to debate wtb on Žižek? No! And I wouldn't jump into a Sam Adams thread on climate change and try to debate Sam about how to calculate atmospheric heat loss in a globe system or whatever... but Seb *did*. Seb didn't seem to have more than maybe some calc 2 or 3 under his belt, but he just kept asserting things in those threads. Even to a browser of the material, it was clear that Seb was just bullshitting and that Sam knew what he was talking about. What's the point? Ego? Preservation of a worldview? Just a long-term Poe's Law troll? It's clearly not productive.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 09 07:17:11 He thinks he is very vintelligent and can explain everything because he understands how quarks behave :-) not an uncommon form of hubris amongst his kind. I have lost count over how many times seb has surprised me, by stooping lower down the empistemic ladder and presented “arguments” and data to support his claims. This thread is however a new class of crazy. He is actually trying to goad me into contacting his employer.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jul 09 09:16:22 Yeah, Seb's is a weird paranoia/projection. I said it already, but cancel culture tends to occur in the opposite direction (left cancelling right). Seb would only have to worry about his *own* IRL peeps cancelling him for not swimming fast enough after Cthulhu. And what importance is Seb when there are people like Larry Fink in the world? lol. Pretty sure that even in the worst UP arguments people aren't raging like teenagers and getting *that* personal. If anyone ever *does*, it would be far better to just egg your local leftist politician (not actual legal advise) ;D As for the pedo stuff, for the record, I don't think Seb *is* a pedo, I just think he needs to realize that the slippery slope is real. The CDC literally published guidance to normalize "chest-feeding": http://www...-illnesses/breast-surgery.html "Can transgender parents who have had breast surgery breastfeed or chestfeed their infants? Yes. Some transgender parents who have had breast/top surgery may wish to breastfeed, or chestfeed (a term used by some transgender and non-binary parents), their infants." If people like Seb base their morality on state-sanctioned bureaucracies, then they will necessarily support these things — at least in the abstract. Bureaucracies are not a substitute for a conscience.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 09 14:51:37 Nim: "then told us he had looked at and abandoned block chain as a tech decades ago when he was in university" Incorrect. Blockchain wasn't a thing when I was at university. I told you that I looked at it from a govt perspective been 2012 and 2015 for it's potential to - essentially - outsource govt administrative process like e.g. land registry to industry. Do you think your confused recollection here might be due to you starting from a conclusion and working backwards? And if you can't trust your recollection on that point, what else can't you trust it on.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 09 14:53:53 The Nakamoto paper was published late 2008 so actually I suppose I was at university finishing my PhD. But it isn't something that would have caught my attention at the time or looked at professionally. Has very little to do with fusion reactors.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 09 15:06:02 Cc: "I wouldn't jump into a Sam Adams thread on climate change and try to debate Sam about how to calculate atmospheric heat loss in a globe system or whatever... but Seb *did*" Yes, but you don't have a degree in physics, studied atmospheric physics within that, and a PhD in nuclear fusion which is predominantly about radiative transport in gaseous bodies. You wouldn't do it, largely because you don't have the qualifications. What is more, I was correct and Sam was wrong. Which was obvious to anyone who can follow the maths given I provided a derivation of the equations and Sam kept arguing that first order approximations worked fine even though the prerequisite assumptions for a taylor expansion clearly did not apply for the scenario we were discussing which was a non significant radiative forcing. The implication of Sam's assumption was "if we assume negligible net power flow to the planet, then the pressure gradient change is linear with temperature changes about a temperature change of zero." But the condition we were looking is the impact on net power flows. So right off the bat his assumption is violated.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 09 18:01:27 "ncorrect. Blockchain wasn't a thing when I was at university. I told you that I looked at it from a govt perspective been 2012 and 2015 for it's potential to - essentially - outsource govt administrative process like e.g. land registry to industry." Thank god, the chronology of your ego trips in total ignorance, changes everything. I wish you would have told us sooner.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 09 18:12:06 "Do you think your confused recollection here might be due to you starting from a conclusion and working backwards?" No, because the conclusion was not dependent on the time and place where actions occurred. It was the actions themselves, the arrogant yet perfectly ignorant debate me bro. That is the difference between me misremember the tim and place where you were an arrogant asshole and you outright lying about where you have spent your professional life. Bigly.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 09 18:16:59 Anyway, let the global CBDC that will tokenize everything on a central block chain to settle global transaction that BIS (central brank of central banks) is working on shatter all your ignorant ideas. You were an idiot and wrong. http://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2023e3.htm PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SCALE! lol :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 09 18:20:51 CC That report should be very interesting for you. The future of finance is digitization, you will have a centralized bank issue programmable money and then you have decentralized options that nobody can easily control. I have made my bets. This is by far the most dangerous tool being developed by and with the support of the usual suspects.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 09 18:25:26 Sorry you have spent too much money on ammo. Sorry you can't buy more alcohol or suger. Sorry you have reached you CO2 quota, can't have more meat or gasoline. You will have an app that controls everything and makes it easy for you to be a good citizen. You have to be an idiot if you think there will not be serious attempt of social engineering, next level shit. Control the money, control the world.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jul 09 20:44:30 [Seb]: "You wouldn't do it, largely because you don't have the qualifications." Red herring! XD lol. Seb with the low-IQ credentialism again — hoping to gate-keep not through sound argument but through a C.V. XD Seb, you are too low-IQ to even understand how bad faith that argument is, but you make it every time. You will *always* take that bait. You would drop your credentials at a dinner party specifically hoping that people will accept your idiocies without question — since questions will always expose your idiocies. "[I'm Director of the NIAID, and I say that totalitarianism is good for public health. Trust me! I have credentials!]" *Fauci looks around to see who accepts the non sequitur* [Seb]: "What is more, I was correct and Sam was wrong." Temporarily accepting that claim of "correct", why do you suck so hard at defending your positions, then, Seb? Not just there but everywhere? You are too stupid to realize that your inability to argue your supposed credentials itself undermines the value of those credentials. Again, it's "like a 6th grader having a nightmare about defending a PhD thesis, but he didn't write anything, he has nothing to defend, and he is still a little boy a moment away from waking in a puddle." I would worry to see you teaching introductory Algebra to 4th graders. What damage you would do to those minds which must be undone by a better teacher! Low-IQ people such as Seb are terrible at hypotheticals, but what, Seb, do you suppose happens when the credentialing apparatuses fail to filter out low-IQ people and mediocre people from ascending its qualification hierarchies? You are what happens. Similarly, Ketanji Brown Jackson is a Supreme Court Justice, supposedly possessing the credentials for a position representing the best judicial minds in the nation... but does she represent these credentials with her mind? No. Like Kagan and Sotomayor, after years in the profession they will never rise even to the C.V.s they abandoned for the new job. Their purpose is not to exalt credentials but to undermine them for their puppet-masters. Seb will always undermine his credentials to such a degree that it would be better if he claimed not to have any — at least then he could claim autodidacticism. [Nim]: "That report should be very interesting for you." Yikes.. I'll bookmark it. I was hoping not to get black-pilled so much today ;D
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 02:45:48 Nim: I did tell you sooner. You are the one making a random, incorrect claim about something I said. What else are you wrong/lying to yourself about to sustain your internal narrative? Well for a start: Blockchain CBDC isn't a Blockchain. It's just a digitally signed ledger that relies on trusted operators. (Talk about fundamental error). The criticism regarding scaling in relation to Blockchain relates to the proof of work mechanism, a fact we discussed to death at the time. Something you are either dishonestly omitting or choosing to ignore. In a few weeks you'll be lying about this thread too, saying I claimed to be an expert at ESG when actually all I've done is demonstrated a basic understanding of what it actually is (as opposed to qanon style ramblings) and refuted CCs absurd claims that I'm unaware of them until this thread. This you have inflated into a claim of storied expertise - a dishonest straw man for you to knock down. People with integrity don't do this, even if they need to
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 03:02:06 Cc: "Seb with the low-IQ credentialism again" Quite right. I should have said education, but it's a good proxy. That's why you wouldn't go into a Sam thread and talk about climate. You are clueless about the technicalities and accept as such. "why do you suck so hard at defending your positions" My point against Sam is objectively true and I provided all the necessary working for anyone who wanted to to repeat it. It also matches the findings of pretty much every scientific study into the impact of global warming on the atmospheric temperature profile. The question you should ask yourself is why you think Sam is a more credible subject, especially since as I recall his entire counter argument boiled down to "because a text book I read once said this was the right equation to use for a different purpose". Somehow you came away with the impression his argument was better. That's on you, not me. "I would worry to see you teaching introductory Algebra to 4th graders." So would I. It would suggest something somewhere has gone very wrong. I disliked teaching undergraduates and teaching algebra to children seems even less appealing. Anyway, you seem to have got the idea that my argument was having a bit of paper saying PhD matters rather than the thesis & papers you need to produce and get reviewed and published. My point was simply the reason *you* wouldn't argue with Sam about climate is because you don't have the skills and knowledge and aptitudes I have. You can speculate all you like that universities and research facilities have become infested with low-iq folks handing clever certificates to each other. They'll go on doing research, I'll go on being able to derive mathematical proofs that Sam's understanding of what the atmospheric temp profile does is wrong under the conditions in question, and you'll continue to blather on about calculus, paedophiles and how the ESG is coming to get us. This, basically, is why I ignore most of what you write. It is, intellectually, a hermetically sealed bubble of confirmation bias.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 03:53:39 [Seb]: "That's why you wouldn't go into a Sam thread and talk about climate." "My point was simply the reason *you* wouldn't argue with Sam about climate is because you don't have the skills and knowledge and aptitudes I have." False and already addressed. You failed to address my counter-argument due to your intellectual impotence. Also hilarious that you think you have a greater aptitude than myself. Again, even *if* that were so (it is not and is demonstrably not so via the many flaws of your character and intellect which I have extensively itemized here), your terminal inability to prove it means that it is not. All you have is the kind of assertion that a petulant child has that he "should" be able to beat a difficult level in a video game — but continuously fails to do so and instead gnashes his teeth. What good even is the greatest intellect in the world if it is within Joe Bonham's doomed body? What good is a mind that is incapable of manifesting its presumed greatness? Such a mind is just another of Dostoevsky's underground men: a bureaucrat whose magnum opus is the ease at which the state can file his death certificate. You cannot even read a paragraph and are already likely skimming, yet you want us to believe that you possess a superior "aptitude". You want us to believe in the great and commendable strength of the research which built your credentials, yet you have never shown any commendable strength. The natural conclusion is that you have none. [CC]: "Temporarily accepting that claim of "correct", why do you suck so hard at defending your positions, then, Seb? Not just there but everywhere?" [Seb]: "My point against Sam is objectively true and I provided all the necessary working for anyone who wanted to to repeat it." Evading the question, Seb. I'll spell it out as a proof: 1) You suck at explaining your positions. (Demonstrable truth) 2) Given that you suck at explaining your positions (1), why is it that your "expertise" should be taken as anything but toilet paper? [Seb]: "So would I ... I disliked teaching" Awesome! Glad you know that you would be shit at it. Your dislike is probably an indicator that you were shit at it, which means that you agree that you're shit. :) [Seb]: "You can speculate all you like that universities and research facilities have become infested with low-iq folks handing clever certificates to each other." I don't have to speculate. [Seb]: "This, basically, is why I ignore most of what you write. It is, intellectually, a hermetically sealed bubble of confirmation bias." That's cute, Seb. But always remember: • *I* am the one providing extensive sources to support my arguments. • *My* arguments are directly from my citations. • *Mine* are the arguments reflected directly by the legal actions being taken against ESG by attorneys general (i.e., the arguments I was making in the totalitarians threads were explicitly brought to court). And you.. meanwhile.. have at least 28 egregious errors in this thread alone. But oh! It must be "confirmation bias"! :D You again project, Seb. I somehow suspect that even if Seb surrounds himself at work with idiots to make himself the biggest fish in a stagnant pond, that they all intuitively know that Seb is full of shit. :)
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 04:21:03 CC: You didn't make any other counter argument. "You cannot even read a paragraph" I can. The problem with your paragraphs is they are self aggrandising nonsense. "1) You suck at explaining your positions. (Demonstrable truth)" I disagree - most people understand my positions. Even Nim admitted earlier in this thread to deliberately misunderstanding my posts as an expression of his pique. "why is it that your "expertise" should be taken as anything but toilet paper?" Ho hum. Go back through this thread and remind yourself who brought up my expertise/qualifications etc. It was Nim. He's mildly obsessed with it. The only thing I have said to you is to the effect of "of course I know what ESG is, I worked in the centre of UK govt during the run up to the SDGs". You can continue to believe that I've never heard of them before if you like.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 04:23:15 CC: "*I* am the one providing extensive sources to support my arguments." That's no help when your sources aren't particularly credible or hang together. "*Mine* are the arguments reflected directly by the legal actions being taken against ESG by attorneys general (i.e., the arguments I was making in the totalitarians threads were explicitly brought to court)." Did they win? In any case, if we are talking US judicial system how credible is that these days?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 10 04:50:58 Low resolution idiot with an accredited degree: “BIS, Bank of England complete CBDC trial using blockchain“ Here seb shows, he doesn’t understand the difference between the concept of Central Bank issued digital currency, and block chain, one of the digital technologies used to deploy and maintain cyrptocurrencies and CBDCs. He is doing this to obfuscate and divert the discussion away from the many times he described blockchain as useless, physically impossible to scale etc and so on. Yea the tech is a so useless for a fonancial system that The Financial system want to transition to it. Or you could have listened to Nhill, everything in finance will be on a blck chain sooner or later, centralized or decentralized doesn’t matter, because the technology is just so much better. So whatever it is that you did for the gubmint, I have no opinion in, the extrapolated conclusion you drew are being demolished by the global world order of finance. You are just not very good at anything, outside your nische. You lack curiosity to look for answer, the humility to accept gaps in your knowledge and a spine to admit when you are wrong. You are an intellectual amoeba.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 10 04:58:09 Just to be clear for eceryone else, practically EVERY national CBDC project is using blackchain and cryptogtaphy. People read inti the subject know the black chain ledger can be centralized or distributed and decentralized. CC The CBDCs are by far the most terrifying thing on the horizon. Once they go through and if there isn’t a decentralized crypto ecology where you can “get off”. What are we gonna do? The resistance have to work out a barter system.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 05:12:33 Nim: 1. Journalistic error asside, the trial you refer to was not Blockchain based. It was an API onto the BoEs existing systems. https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/42492/bis-and-bank-of-england-complete-cbdc-project https://fintechmagazine.com/articles/bis-quant-boe-complete-cbdc-exploration-project Further, the work now is not based on Blockchain or any similar cryptographic system allowing distributed processing. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound "The digital pound would not be a cryptocurrency or cryptoasset. As opposed to cryptocurrencies, which are issued privately, the digital pound would be issued by the Bank of England and be backed by the Government."
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 05:15:07 "using Cryptography" is a hopelessly vague term. Encrypting a centrally held traditional database "uses cryptography". Does it use approaches designed to enable a "trustless" system that can allow b distributed processing of the ledger like Blockchain? No.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 05:20:55 http://www...g=AOvVaw2igBtr4q49p8Btr-xIQYn- Oh look, they assess DLTs and basically say "it imposes constraints and doesn't meet our use cases, here's the use cases it might meet, but those aren't ours. We will keep a watching brief".
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 05:26:16 [Seb]: "You didn't make any other counter argument." Oof. Time to hold Seb's hand again.. [CC]: "[Seb is] now pretending to be an expert with a storied history of ESG knowledge ... I wouldn't jump into a Sam Adams thread on climate change and try to debate Sam" [Seb]: "Quite right. I should have said education, but it's a good proxy. / That's why you wouldn't go into a Sam thread and talk about climate. You are clueless about the technicalities and accept as such ... you don't have the qualifications" [CC]: "Seb with the low-IQ credentialism again — hoping to gate-keep not through sound argument but through a C.V. XD" In other words, your argument was that I would not go into a Sam thread on climate because I do not have the "education" and thus am "clueless about the technicalities". This is false. I pointed out that this is false because your own credentials do not help you in those threads, so, clearly credentials are not the factor in a successful debate with Sam on climate. You could not even convincingly apply calculus, with your posts being riddled with elementary errors that I myself could identify and which Sam had to repeatedly correct just for the debate to function at a baseline level. Your inattentiveness meant a high error rate and a clumsy process which undermined even your undergrad work. If credentials were the deciding factor, then you would have done better in those threads, but credentials were *not*, so instead you shit the bed for everyone to see. Whatever credentials you believe you have, they *failed* you. Conversely, my point was that I would not go into a Sam thread *not* because of credentialism logic (that is *your* red herring) but because Sam clearly has a much more present knowledge of that specific topic and thus was in a position to convincingly present that topic as a trustworthy authority. Now, if you were mentally retarded, you might think that that means that Sam's knowledge is entirely owned by credentialism (i.e., you'd return to the same bureaucratic error that this must be because of "education" and "technicalities" and "qualifications"), but my point is that that is a particularly specific rabbit hole that requires refreshers, pertinent context, process, and *authority* — these things as separate from credentialism. Even more shortly: if someone were already presenting as an authority on a topic, I would not jump into the topic with low-resolution arguments that merely demonstrate non-productive distraction unless I could supplement with peripheral authority. You, on the other hand, *do*. That is your M.O. again. As an example: I would better trust someone as an authority who had recently attended a course on safety and was confident to teach the information *over* someone who had a decades-old degree in a related subject and simply said, "Trust me, bro. HF is safe to drink. I have a PhD in HF." You are the "trust me, bro," incapable of explaining why HF is "safe to drink" (it's not), and people who believe you as an authority inevitably are injured. Ironically, I offered my comment about the Sam threads in good faith, presenting this comment as a humble admission that all humans — including myself — do not know everything about everything at all moments and are not all ready to be an authority on all things. And you, being weak-minded and disingenuous, naturally seized upon this specific offering of humble logic as a *weakness* to *exploit* for another rhetorical deception. In another admission of the total immorality of your character, you saw someone being humble, and, rather than admitting that you too have domains wherein you should be humble, you again applied your endless megalomania, building a false image of yourself as someone who has no limits to his knowledge and no domain wherein he is not an expert. This is pure delusion, and your persistent inability to face the limits of your knowledge and authority has continuously made you a subject of mockery here — rightfully so. [CC]: "You suck at explaining your positions" [Seb]: "I disagree - most people understand my positions." You suck at *explaining* your positions, Seb. This is different from them being *comprehensible*. Maybe I should restate: you suck as getting at the truth. I understand your positions (topically, on ESG), and they are false. [Seb]: "Go back through this thread and remind yourself who brought up my expertise/qualifications etc" Awful deflection. Your argument with Nim is irrelevant to the arguments that you *chose* to have with me. It was *you* who believed that "education" and "technicalities" were relevant, and it was *you* who responded to *me* with.. "Yes, but you don't have a degree in physics, studied atmospheric physics within that, and a PhD in nuclear fusion which is predominantly about radiative transport in gaseous bodies ... you don't have the qualifications." Absolutely prevaricating, Seb. [Seb]: "The only thing I have said to you is to the effect of "of course I know what ESG is, I worked in the centre of UK govt during the run up to the SDGs"." More deception, Seb? That is *not* "The only thing". You made no less than *28* false claims about ESG. You made *another* here, in a very "parochial" manner, believing in "[*the*] run up to the SDGs", which you still falsely reconcile (though I won't give away why this is an error, since I think it's hilarious that you cannot fix the error). [Seb]: "You can continue to believe that I've never heard of them before if you like." Your revisionist deceptions are worthless, Seb. Now it's "never heard of them" as opposed to my claim of "directly addressed the issue" and "he's now pretending to be an expert with a storied history of ESG knowledge"? Nice twist! You really are Jewish, aren't you, Seb? Just admit it. You're going back and slightly changing words like a weaselly lawyer to re-frame your previous statements, squeeze out another rhetorical deception, and incrementally change the argument to edge out some favor. What's worse, as an example: An immoral narcissist with his mind off may pass by a dog in the distance and never speak of it or even think of it. Years later, were he to find the need to pretend that he is an expert on otterhound physiology in order to participate in a discussion in which he has no business, he could convince himself that the passively acquired memory of this dog was now a source of "expertise". Such a prevaricator would insist that he has known of the otterhound physiology all along! He would make no less than 28 false statements about the otterhound and declare that his never having mentioned the otterhound is irrelevant to his "expertise" — for he passed a dog! To spell it out: even *if* I were to accept that you were at ground zero for ESG knowledge, you *still* would only be admitting that you never thought of it, never raised it as an issue, and never had insights on it — *despite* having this supposedly useful memory of it! You are *only* admitting that your mind was previously "off" on all things ESG, since your inability to even make cursory truthful statements on the issue shows that you know less than a casual Twitter user. And again, Seb.. What do you think of this picture? Here again: (warning, "chest-feeding" pic) http://twitter.com/mikaminio/status/1675473919065612288 Are you capable of disgust? Is there any point that "tolerance" finds a limit in you? Is there any line that you will hold to stop your conquerors?
	show deleted posts