The blockchain community, though it contains a few interesting projects, is dominated by obvious scams, and so received an appropriate amount of contempt from traditional finance at Davos, whose scams are much more subtle and institutionalized.
More gold:
One characteristic of Davos attendees is that they love being called out in a safe and defanged manner, and they love safe and defanged activism.
On journalists:
The private parties are very good, but journalists are kept out partly because they’re often one-timers, partly because they’re not all that socially skilled, and partly because not many people want spies roaming around their parties looking for lurid details.
the part on traditional banking may sound like a clever soundbite, but the safety of personal banking is actually quite high, at least compared to the crypto space.
And a more general note after perusing the website because the edgy tone seemed somewhat off. While it's quite easy to deride the pretentious Davos crowd, a magazine that describes itself as 'exploring the post liberal future' and puts an oddly positive spin on Chinese internment and policing of minorities, is there some ulterior motive in the reporting here?
Institutionalized, fine, but subtle? I think manipulative is the word for all of this. Short of widespread consciousness to the systems we depend on, the methods at work are manipulation, however deluded the practitioner.
For most of those living under capitalism, freedoms, like that of speech, remain outside of their price range. This is hardly a subtle scam.
If people are trained to not notice something, and they fail to notice it, would you say that the something is subtle? It's an interesting philosophical exercise...
Yes. I think it’s a delicate and important one. For what is the difference in being trained and being institutionalized? Training serves the ability of the individual and institutions serve the ability of the people, so what’s the matter?
I think there is no shortage of paths by which an honest interrogation will conclude that specialization is a benefit in anything but politics, and it’s when the people (Poli translates to “people”) are reduced to services that we have a technocracy. It’s when the people are deprived of the wealth of knowledge and material necessary to be their greater selves, politics and democracy has seen it’s day.
The extent that we have progressed from feudalism is absent in the divisions of power, and ever-present in the displacement of responsibility. For any progress, the societal trajectory is basic as can be: nowadays, the people blame themselves.
Comments
Hehe, this part had me smiling:
More gold:
On journalists:
the part on traditional banking may sound like a clever soundbite, but the safety of personal banking is actually quite high, at least compared to the crypto space.
And a more general note after perusing the website because the edgy tone seemed somewhat off. While it's quite easy to deride the pretentious Davos crowd, a magazine that describes itself as 'exploring the post liberal future' and puts an oddly positive spin on Chinese internment and policing of minorities, is there some ulterior motive in the reporting here?
Institutionalized, fine, but subtle? I think manipulative is the word for all of this. Short of widespread consciousness to the systems we depend on, the methods at work are manipulation, however deluded the practitioner.
For most of those living under capitalism, freedoms, like that of speech, remain outside of their price range. This is hardly a subtle scam.
If people are trained to not notice something, and they fail to notice it, would you say that the something is subtle? It's an interesting philosophical exercise...
Yes. I think it’s a delicate and important one. For what is the difference in being trained and being institutionalized? Training serves the ability of the individual and institutions serve the ability of the people, so what’s the matter?
I think there is no shortage of paths by which an honest interrogation will conclude that specialization is a benefit in anything but politics, and it’s when the people (Poli translates to “people”) are reduced to services that we have a technocracy. It’s when the people are deprived of the wealth of knowledge and material necessary to be their greater selves, politics and democracy has seen it’s day.
The extent that we have progressed from feudalism is absent in the divisions of power, and ever-present in the displacement of responsibility. For any progress, the societal trajectory is basic as can be: nowadays, the people blame themselves.