Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 04:22:52 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 02, 2016, 03:25:58 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 02:25:16 PMLOL. And it goes personal. "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there."-Gene RoddenberryThat's my point. That maturity he's talking about is losing tribalism. Us vs Them. Globalism isn't bad because it's the start of maturity.Why the fuck is Gene Roddenberry you're intellectual backing here? You're literally citing Star Trek. What the fuck.So? His story touched millions. Like it or not, his vision gave people hope. And I'm not quoting Star Trek, I'm quoting the author. It's not so much that his work is popular, it's the fact that you referenced a fucking screenwriter as a legitimate intellectual source in a serious discussion.It's like you deliberately go out of your way to miss the point of what people are trying to say sometimes.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 02, 2016, 03:25:58 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 02:25:16 PMLOL. And it goes personal. "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there."-Gene RoddenberryThat's my point. That maturity he's talking about is losing tribalism. Us vs Them. Globalism isn't bad because it's the start of maturity.Why the fuck is Gene Roddenberry you're intellectual backing here? You're literally citing Star Trek. What the fuck.So? His story touched millions. Like it or not, his vision gave people hope. And I'm not quoting Star Trek, I'm quoting the author.
Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 02:25:16 PMLOL. And it goes personal. "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there."-Gene RoddenberryThat's my point. That maturity he's talking about is losing tribalism. Us vs Them. Globalism isn't bad because it's the start of maturity.Why the fuck is Gene Roddenberry you're intellectual backing here? You're literally citing Star Trek. What the fuck.
LOL. And it goes personal. "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there."-Gene RoddenberryThat's my point. That maturity he's talking about is losing tribalism. Us vs Them. Globalism isn't bad because it's the start of maturity.
Quote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 09:39:06 AMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 04:22:52 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 02, 2016, 03:25:58 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 02:25:16 PMLOL. And it goes personal. "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there."-Gene RoddenberryThat's my point. That maturity he's talking about is losing tribalism. Us vs Them. Globalism isn't bad because it's the start of maturity.Why the fuck is Gene Roddenberry you're intellectual backing here? You're literally citing Star Trek. What the fuck.So? His story touched millions. Like it or not, his vision gave people hope. And I'm not quoting Star Trek, I'm quoting the author. It's not so much that his work is popular, it's the fact that you referenced a fucking screenwriter as a legitimate intellectual source in a serious discussion.It's like you deliberately go out of your way to miss the point of what people are trying to say sometimes.And? Having a concrete view of the future and the ability to communicate that vision to millions puts him ahead of most. And does his life as a writer invalidate him? Especially when most mainstream scientists quote him whenever the future is brought up?
Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 04, 2016, 07:30:37 PMQuote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 09:39:06 AMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 04:22:52 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 02, 2016, 03:25:58 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 02:25:16 PMLOL. And it goes personal. "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there."-Gene RoddenberryThat's my point. That maturity he's talking about is losing tribalism. Us vs Them. Globalism isn't bad because it's the start of maturity.Why the fuck is Gene Roddenberry you're intellectual backing here? You're literally citing Star Trek. What the fuck.So? His story touched millions. Like it or not, his vision gave people hope. And I'm not quoting Star Trek, I'm quoting the author. It's not so much that his work is popular, it's the fact that you referenced a fucking screenwriter as a legitimate intellectual source in a serious discussion.It's like you deliberately go out of your way to miss the point of what people are trying to say sometimes.And? Having a concrete view of the future and the ability to communicate that vision to millions puts him ahead of most. And does his life as a writer invalidate him? Especially when most mainstream scientists quote him whenever the future is brought up?I don't really care how influential you think he is. He was a television writer, with virtually no intellectual or credible bearing to what the thread is about. As interesting as his perspectives may be, citing a sci fi writer and producer, aka an entertainer, doesn't exactly belong in the realms of a serious discussion. It's like asking Tom Clancy for advice on a genuine military operation.You're entitled to your opinions on globalism but at least substantiate these opinions with a somewhat reputable backing to them.
Quote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 08:07:30 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 04, 2016, 07:30:37 PMQuote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 09:39:06 AMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 04:22:52 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 02, 2016, 03:25:58 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 02:25:16 PMLOL. And it goes personal. "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there."-Gene RoddenberryThat's my point. That maturity he's talking about is losing tribalism. Us vs Them. Globalism isn't bad because it's the start of maturity.Why the fuck is Gene Roddenberry you're intellectual backing here? You're literally citing Star Trek. What the fuck.So? His story touched millions. Like it or not, his vision gave people hope. And I'm not quoting Star Trek, I'm quoting the author. It's not so much that his work is popular, it's the fact that you referenced a fucking screenwriter as a legitimate intellectual source in a serious discussion.It's like you deliberately go out of your way to miss the point of what people are trying to say sometimes.And? Having a concrete view of the future and the ability to communicate that vision to millions puts him ahead of most. And does his life as a writer invalidate him? Especially when most mainstream scientists quote him whenever the future is brought up?I don't really care how influential you think he is. He was a television writer, with virtually no intellectual or credible bearing to what the thread is about. As interesting as his perspectives may be, citing a sci fi writer and producer, aka an entertainer, doesn't exactly belong in the realms of a serious discussion. It's like asking Tom Clancy for advice on a genuine military operation.You're entitled to your opinions on globalism but at least substantiate these opinions with a somewhat reputable backing to them.Oh... So post what everyone rlse is with the same level of source?TEH MUDSLINES R EBIL N EEE SHUD NUK M ALL
Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 04, 2016, 08:12:54 PMQuote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 08:07:30 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 04, 2016, 07:30:37 PMQuote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 09:39:06 AMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 04:22:52 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 02, 2016, 03:25:58 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 02:25:16 PMLOL. And it goes personal. "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there."-Gene RoddenberryThat's my point. That maturity he's talking about is losing tribalism. Us vs Them. Globalism isn't bad because it's the start of maturity.Why the fuck is Gene Roddenberry you're intellectual backing here? You're literally citing Star Trek. What the fuck.So? His story touched millions. Like it or not, his vision gave people hope. And I'm not quoting Star Trek, I'm quoting the author. It's not so much that his work is popular, it's the fact that you referenced a fucking screenwriter as a legitimate intellectual source in a serious discussion.It's like you deliberately go out of your way to miss the point of what people are trying to say sometimes.And? Having a concrete view of the future and the ability to communicate that vision to millions puts him ahead of most. And does his life as a writer invalidate him? Especially when most mainstream scientists quote him whenever the future is brought up?I don't really care how influential you think he is. He was a television writer, with virtually no intellectual or credible bearing to what the thread is about. As interesting as his perspectives may be, citing a sci fi writer and producer, aka an entertainer, doesn't exactly belong in the realms of a serious discussion. It's like asking Tom Clancy for advice on a genuine military operation.You're entitled to your opinions on globalism but at least substantiate these opinions with a somewhat reputable backing to them.Oh... So post what everyone rlse is with the same level of source?TEH MUDSLINES R EBIL N EEE SHUD NUK M ALLPosts like these is why nobody takes you seriously any more.
Quote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 08:16:07 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 04, 2016, 08:12:54 PMQuote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 08:07:30 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 04, 2016, 07:30:37 PMQuote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 09:39:06 AMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 04:22:52 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 02, 2016, 03:25:58 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 02:25:16 PMLOL. And it goes personal. "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there."-Gene RoddenberryThat's my point. That maturity he's talking about is losing tribalism. Us vs Them. Globalism isn't bad because it's the start of maturity.Why the fuck is Gene Roddenberry you're intellectual backing here? You're literally citing Star Trek. What the fuck.So? His story touched millions. Like it or not, his vision gave people hope. And I'm not quoting Star Trek, I'm quoting the author. It's not so much that his work is popular, it's the fact that you referenced a fucking screenwriter as a legitimate intellectual source in a serious discussion.It's like you deliberately go out of your way to miss the point of what people are trying to say sometimes.And? Having a concrete view of the future and the ability to communicate that vision to millions puts him ahead of most. And does his life as a writer invalidate him? Especially when most mainstream scientists quote him whenever the future is brought up?I don't really care how influential you think he is. He was a television writer, with virtually no intellectual or credible bearing to what the thread is about. As interesting as his perspectives may be, citing a sci fi writer and producer, aka an entertainer, doesn't exactly belong in the realms of a serious discussion. It's like asking Tom Clancy for advice on a genuine military operation.You're entitled to your opinions on globalism but at least substantiate these opinions with a somewhat reputable backing to them.Oh... So post what everyone rlse is with the same level of source?TEH MUDSLINES R EBIL N EEE SHUD NUK M ALLPosts like these is why nobody takes you seriously any more.Why would you take anyone seriously on this board?
Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 04, 2016, 08:21:17 PMQuote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 08:16:07 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 04, 2016, 08:12:54 PMQuote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 08:07:30 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 04, 2016, 07:30:37 PMQuote from: Mordo on September 04, 2016, 09:39:06 AMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 04:22:52 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 02, 2016, 03:25:58 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on September 02, 2016, 02:25:16 PMLOL. And it goes personal. "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there."-Gene RoddenberryThat's my point. That maturity he's talking about is losing tribalism. Us vs Them. Globalism isn't bad because it's the start of maturity.Why the fuck is Gene Roddenberry you're intellectual backing here? You're literally citing Star Trek. What the fuck.So? His story touched millions. Like it or not, his vision gave people hope. And I'm not quoting Star Trek, I'm quoting the author. It's not so much that his work is popular, it's the fact that you referenced a fucking screenwriter as a legitimate intellectual source in a serious discussion.It's like you deliberately go out of your way to miss the point of what people are trying to say sometimes.And? Having a concrete view of the future and the ability to communicate that vision to millions puts him ahead of most. And does his life as a writer invalidate him? Especially when most mainstream scientists quote him whenever the future is brought up?I don't really care how influential you think he is. He was a television writer, with virtually no intellectual or credible bearing to what the thread is about. As interesting as his perspectives may be, citing a sci fi writer and producer, aka an entertainer, doesn't exactly belong in the realms of a serious discussion. It's like asking Tom Clancy for advice on a genuine military operation.You're entitled to your opinions on globalism but at least substantiate these opinions with a somewhat reputable backing to them.Oh... So post what everyone rlse is with the same level of source?TEH MUDSLINES R EBIL N EEE SHUD NUK M ALLPosts like these is why nobody takes you seriously any more.Why would you take anyone seriously on this board?I take the people that post here far more seriously than someone who's a carbon copy of a reddit board.
The thread is "Why is Globalism Bad" not "Cite with sources explaining the failures of Globalism and society."
Globalism isn't bad, as we can't achieve our potential until we move past tribalism.
Fine.
Why is Globalism bad?
