Exhibit 452A,
FFS. This thread is about all of your “factual errors” or as some see them, lies. Go back to the beginning if you need to and read the thread again. There are a plethora of examples pointed out by other posters over several years. The fact you choose to ignore them doesn’t mean they aren’t true.
And yet, somehow, you’re on top of every right-wing talking point?
And Exhibit 452B from this very thread:
Demand a cite in GD, and I will always comply. Alternate between calling me names and demanding cites in the pit, and I’ll decide whether I feel like it on any given day. Don’t like it? Don’t engage with me in the pit.
Alternatively, demand a cite, and he’ll run away from the thread and head to the pit.
The order of events:
- Sam says in P&E, paraphrased, “They do crazy shit at the WEF. For example, here’s some crazy shit they do.”
- I ask him for a cite here in The Pit.
- He refuses, but says he’ll give a cite in GD.
- I ask him over in P&E for a cite.
- He says–and this is fucking amazing–that it was an example of what they do, not a thing they actually did. Then he scolds me for asking for a cite.
- When pressed on it, he gets annoyed and leaves the thread.
I’ve reported that post, because it’s yet another example of how he corruptly engages in conversation.
And when I say it’s an example, I don’t mean I made it up and it didn’t happen. It’s actually a thing that happened.
Cites available on request.
- He’ll no longer discuss it because it’s a highjack of the thread . . . a highjack Sam started.
Strangely, only one of us was talking about the WEF wanting to embed RFID chips in COVID vaccinations to imprint everyone with the mark of the beast enact techno-authoritarianism. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide which of us is more likely to be swallowing conspiracies. Or sorry, explaining why rational people would believe in conspiracies. That you don’t believe in. Or even read about. Or god forbid bookmark the pages of.
I think it was also a bit of “I never said that this is what they said (despite actually quoting Klaus Schwab directly), it’s what the crazy right wing believe that they said.”
Which is bullshit, because we can all go back and read the post for ourselves and see what he wrote and who he quoted (incorrectly). Then he tried to make up some bullshit about maybe hearing something something someone from WEF said in a video that is no longer there as it was taken down. Nobody bit on that one.
The thing is, I think he actually believes these bullshit rationalizations, and really does think he’s being picked on. He just makes shit up after the fact to defend his mistakes.
He likes to plant one of his made up facts in the middle of something factual in the hopes that no-one will call for a cite.
I would not hang around a place where I felt that I was as mistreated as he thinks he is. I mean, ick. No self esteem at all.
Or he’s just a troll.
The best thing to do is stop digging, drop the shovel, and never pick it up again. If you have to, get somebody you trust to warn when you’re reaching for the shovel again
The real problem was some of us (me at least) were already familiar with that ‘’‘’‘quote’‘’‘’ and knew that what Sam was saying was bullshit from the first mention of it.
This is, on reflection, the very best part: he refused to give a cite in the pit but said he’d give a cite in GD. It’s my favorite part because he surely knew that he wasn’t planning to give a cite in GD, because he had no cite to give. I don’t know whether he was hoping I wouldn’t call his bluff, or whether he was hoping I’d dance like a monkey for him. Either way, it’s the best.
Actually I went down quite a rabbit hole to find that cite. I looked for the deleted video and didn’t find it, so I didn’t know if Klaus said it in there or not. But when the video was summarized earlier in the thread and the speaker identified as not being Schwab, I admitted that maybe I misremembered who it was.
I also think this was about the most trivial part of my post, and you all zeroed in on it to the extent that you completely lost the point I was making, which was in support of your belief that the right was playing fast and loose with the facts. Then people started accusing me of buying into the far right conspiracy after I had already said they were nuts and why, which is a much bigger mistake than misremembering who made a comment years ago.
Speaking of
Maybe you misremembered who it was?
Here’s the post where you “misremembered” what Klaus Shwab said. I wonder if you can point out anywhere in this post where you were "in support of your belief that the right was playing fast and loose with the facts". All your post seems to be is a screed about the various ways about how horrible the WEF is, and how they have stupid people talk at their conferences about crazy shit. With the bullshit false quote stuck in there.
Nothing, NOTHING about “the right playing fast and loose with the facts.” Nothing like that at all.
No, but they are okay with the state controlling the movements of people, their buying choices, what they can drive, what drugs they must take, what they can read or watch, what they can eat…
Call it techno-authoritarianism. Or Chinese Style state capitalism. That’s what the WEF wants. The smart people of the world running the lives of everyone else for their own good.
Possibly the ‘socialist’ worry comes from Klaus Schwab himself (founder of the WEF), who is quoted as saying “In the future you will have no privacy, and no property. And you will like it!”
More fascist is their push for ‘stakeholder capitalism’ and ‘ESG’ - both of which are now failing badly because they were always a bad idea.
There’s also an element of transhumanism in the WEF. They talk about life extension, the wonders of implantable chips in the body, yada yada. I have no problem with explorations into these areas, but they cross the line by talking about implementing this stuff globally.
One of the weird things about the WEF that hurts them is that it’s a strange amalgam of a UN-style government planning activities combined with TED-style talks by anyone willing to pony up the money to speak. So a serious conference on climate legislation is followed by a wild talk about embedding chips in people to track their Co2 or something, and people put them together as one proposal and it makes the serious stuff sound crazy too.
But there’s plenty of crazy even from the ‘serious’ people.
I take heart in the WEFs trajectory. Their themes in the past years were “The Great Reset”, followed by “Build Back Better”, followed by “The Great Narrative” (convincing people we need to reset and build back better), and to this year’s “Rebuilding Trust” (We tried to get them to do what we want and they hate us. Manipulating the narrative didn’t work. Now what?")
If you thought the WEF was meaningless and has no power, go look at how many world leaders repeated the “Build back Better” slogan while selling the public on whatever spending programs they wanted…
What’s sad is he ruined the WEF thread. The thread quickly became the debunk Sam’s lies thread. Again. Every political thread he enters is the same. He really should get a sub-forum ban on P&E.
I guess Sam finding that what he said there was bullshit, should lead him to realize that the WEF is less fascist. 
Nah, he is likely to repeat later that the WEF is more fascist because of “reasons”, regardless if he knows that the right wing fake talking points did go through his “well maintained science feeds”.
Of course he will, we just hit step 6. Next is to loop back to Step 4 where Sam repeats the same “mistakes”.
I think he actually thinks he said in that post something that " was in support of your belief that the right was playing fast and loose with the facts" .
Possibly he was thinking that. We’ll never know, because that’s not what he wrote.
Perhaps he forgot that he only came up with this excuse AFTER his mistake was pointed out to him. Perhaps he misremembered what he wrote himself.
That’s what he always does. He comes up with excuses after the fact. Remember when he overreacted to an anti-Musk article from The Onion. He comically claimed that his sudden essay that was on the same subject as article was totally just a coincidence.