I don't think "all men" is a dog whistle in this case, but being impossible to falsify is like, the intent behind a dog whistle accusation.

What was the editorial purpose for the comment? Why is the sex of the participants of the alleged conversation relevant? The author takes great pains to make the other conversants seem borderline maniacal and also wants to make sure we know that they are all men. Why not also include their heights or hair colors? It's just as relevant in the context of the article.

I'm not arguing your point, using the concept of a "Dog Whistle" might be bad style of arguing. By virtue that its not possible to exonerate yourself from it.

Strongly agree with you. A lot of the big problems, such as climate change, are things we stumbled upon as we advance as a society/economy/civilization.

You cannot expect some random individual (say for example an exec at Shell) to take it upon himself to save the world. He would not be allowed to, if he tried.

This feeling of uneasiness that we are feeling is because social and political technology has not advanced enough to keep pace with the rapid advancement of our economy.

> You cannot expect some random individual (say for example an exec at Shell) to take it upon himself to save the world. He would not be allowed to, if he tried.

Plus, the people are mad they're not saving the world, then making comments about how useless they'd be after the collapse, like little babies. One comment says billionaires can't iron a shirt.

But right now, that helpless baby man should be working on saving the planet?

My wealth is outsized compared to most of the planet. Actual non-wealthy people probably consider this entire discussion board a bunch of wealthy, evil baby men infighting and pointing fingers.

Except in many cases they actively hid, and lobbied against, measures that would have helped. The big oil companies all had research showing what emissions would do - and they buried them, and lobbied governments for tax breaks, to gut public transit and more.

All in the pursuit of "maximizing shareholder value".

To try and paint the people prepping now because they know what's coming in a charitable light is somewhat odd ...

What is the current state of affairs due to if not the conquests of societies most powerful players, who, by definition, are powerful because they can exert power to make shit happen?

In your post, you imply marxist takes, imply "all men" being a dog whistle (maybe it just was all men?) and dismiss a very highly regarded acadamic of hacing a "third grade level of IT economics", but present very little arguments for any of these

It doesn't sound to me like the people in this group necessarily have much influence on environmental practices and the industries involved or on geopolitics. And one can't assume other people of similar levels of wealth think similarly. Or even what the men involved in this meeting actually think.

The entire article is assumptions built upon assumptions, with specious accusations and labeling throughout. It is sad to see much of the same in the comments.

Further, I find myself questioning whether this meeting even happened. This reads like scenario invented so the author could get paid for a "think" piece.

I wonder how much was his writing and how much was editing by others?

And? How does this make their opinion more or less valid? This is a classic example of appeal to authority.

When the only argument is fallacious, you actually need to provide something non- fallacious or you are left with no argument and your premise fails, as is the case here. I find it condescending that your only reply was a link and no text. Peak intellectual laziness.

It's not an argument, and so it's not an appeal to authority, nor any other fallacious argument. It's just the blurb you see if you click on the author's byline at the head of the article.

I clicked on it, because I wanted to know who the author was.

Ah, so he's entirely unqualified to write on the topic, and also not in the list of the first 10,000 people this "elite group of billionaires" would reach out to to talk about their super secret prepper plans. 100% fake article.

>not primarily due to rich people

But?

These issues are sociaital and everyone has some level of responsibility. Finger pointing at those who were able to profit isn't particularly helpful or even true in most cases. I think people partially do this so they can absolve themselves of their own guilt. Using this line of thinking, those that obtained wealth by pushing green causes or energy are at fault for climate change and whatever impending conspiracy theory "event" for which they are prepping? I find that far too reductive.

You make it sound like they made profit and had nothing to do with environment that made that possible.

How many times did the rich block change trough lobbying to safe their business model, how many think tanks were funded to push their point of view, how many times did they threaten to change their location to other states or even countries?

For instance why is China the workbench of the world despite the human rights situation. It wasn't better when it started, but who cares if it's for profit.

I think it's exactly the opposite, they are more responsible than we know.

> I shouldn't have to say this, but the current state of affairs is not primarily due to rich people and is far more complicated. They display a third-grade level of it economics and are even more cynical than the people he chides.

Use more rigorous language and provide a rationale for your argument. “[C]urrent state of affairs” is vague and inoperative, and you point to an understanding of “far more complicated” issues but do not substantiate it.

However, your comment does serve to express your superiority over the following:

* the author, Douglas Rushkoff

* third-grade economists

* marxists

* contemporary journalists

* the guardian

All of which can be true, but it is lacking for want of certain things like evidence, synthesis, or nuance.

Seems clear enough to me. The author returns again and again to the idea that the men are "responsible" for the coming black swan event they are preparing for. They are but small men in a wider world whatever their wealth.

Such an idea is ridiculous particularly considering the event hasn't happened and is unknown.

It is sad how little the group appears to care about their fellow men. Perhaps that's the lens of the author, I don't know.

But the author also strongly links survival thinking with selfishness, which is hogwash. Poor article, snatching ideological defeat from the jaws of victory.

Before I proceed, I’d like your prespective on the following:

1) Does industrial activity reliant on fossil fuels contribute significantly to climate change?

2) Does engagement-first online political content curation contribute to political instability?

3) Does large scale arbitrage in the areas of real estate, energy, and food production significantly contribute to quality-of-life instability?

"Before I proceed I want to set up some logic traps because I'm more interested in winning than in honest exchange of opinion"

No thanks, have a nice weekend.

Are you SERIOUSLY asking for sources on my opinion on an opinion piece? You do know what opinion means, right?

Agreed. This piece panders to the common trope and adds zero unique insight.

It's really not worth reading.