3 ms·

I really want to know what 5D chess went on to make put "livable cities" and "urban planning" on the truther, red-pilled, plandemic, crowds hit list. It is som

I really want to know what 5D chess went on to make put "livable cities" and "urban planning" on the truther, red-pilled, plandemic, crowds hit list. It is something that should be examined and critically discussed thats not what i'm talking about I'm talking about how suddenly people who have never so much as listened to an episode of 99PI before or showen any interest are suddenly passionately saying livable cities are a way to control us. Who benefits from the propagation of this idea? Is there just someone out there trying to bring about the end of humanity as fast as possible by making people crazy about any thing remotely sensible? Or is this just some discursive collateral damage coming from some ideological battle going on somewhere else where livable cities became one of the front lines, and the bull-shit psyops ideas leaked out every via the internet..

lokar 3y ago
Fear sells
supertrope 3y ago
Conspiracy theory culture is a parody of itself. Sidewalks, safe ways to cross the street, and legalizing apartments increase freedom. It gives you the choice of not having to drive just to cross the street safely. Certain charlatans make money selling outrage culture, or harvest votes exploiting fear about a certain lifestyle coming under attack.
userbinator 3y ago
are suddenly passionately saying livable cities are a way to control us. Look at what the government and Big Tech are doing. There are constant articles here being posted about surveillance, loss of privacy, etc. It's a whole lot easier to control the population when you gradually make it harder for them to travel unhindered and untracked. Chickens in a factory farm can be described as being in "livable" conditions. After all, they are still alive and healthy enough (for a controlled period of time.) They're only calling it a "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to discredit the other side. Who benefits from the propagation of this idea? Everyone who still believes in freedom.
- dfiohnio 3y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Loocid 3y ago
  Do you consider bike centric cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam not free? The concept of "cars == freedom" is completely absurd to me. The mode of transport that has a unique identifier printed on it, that you need a licence to drive that can be revoked, that you have to pay the government to use, is considered the beacon of free and open transport. In fact, many car centric city designs force you to own a car which seems like the opposite of freedom.
- totetsu 3y ago
  But how is advocating having a supermarket within walk-able distance from your home the same thing as making it hard to travel untracked?
- JambalayaJim 3y ago
  Urbanism is in fact premised on making it EASIER to move about unhindered
- ComposedPattern 3y ago
  > It's a whole lot easier to control the population when you gradually make it harder for them to travel unhindered and untracked. Cars are required to have registration and license plates, and most of them have GPS tracking as well. If you don't want to be tracked, ride a bicycle.
  - userbinator 3y ago
    Plates are only visible from a line of sight (and there has been tons of opposition to automatically reading them with cameras, for good reason.) My car has GPS but that's just a receiver. Have you tried to take a 500-mile trip on a bicycle? While carrying a hundred pounds of luggage?
saalweachter 3y ago
It's not going to be true for every conspiracy or every conspiracy theorist, but like most things in the US you can connect a lot of dots with racism. In the Robert Moses era mass transit was destroyed because it benefited poor African American communities, and highways were put down to tear apart their neighborhoods. Today, people use "urban" as a dog whistle for "black". People decided the pandemic was no big deal and we should just let it rip in the US the moment early data showed it affected African Americans and other minorities more than whites. It may not be the true explanation all of the time, but if you ask yourself if there could be a racist motivation for adopting a particular set of odd views, it's amazing how easy it is to connect the dots.
- userbinator 3y ago
  You don't think blacks want to have cars too? This has nothing to do with race; that's just a distraction. As others have noticed, it's about corralling the population into more easily "managed" areas and depriving them of ownership.
FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
I suspect the car industry has a role. Also, these people live in the burbs, and their experience of driving into a city is their experience of the city. It's one of the reasons they hate cities. Driving in is confusing and stressful. Add an alien system of congestion pricing involving some transponder they've never seen before and it's just too much for them. To the extent that the concerns are legitimate, I think we need to look at China, and at the way people were locked down in small condo blocks during COVID. There was a fear that the same tactics would be employed in "Western" countries. There is an irony, however, which is that self-contained condo blocks and "gated communities" are at least as prone to this as are organic grids. Y'know -- actual good urbanism. Finally, I think they do perceive, in their own way, the housing crisis. They recognize that housing is generally more affordable outside cities, so they see the push towards cities as a push towards renting and non-ownership. I would prefer more affordable housing within cities, but I can sort of understand this argument.

lokar 3y ago

Fear sells

supertrope 3y ago

Conspiracy theory culture is a parody of itself. Sidewalks, safe ways to cross the street, and legalizing apartments increase freedom. It gives you the choice of not having to drive just to cross the street safely. Certain charlatans make money selling outrage culture, or harvest votes exploiting fear about a certain lifestyle coming under attack.

userbinator 3y ago

are suddenly passionately saying livable cities are a way to control us. Look at what the government and Big Tech are doing. There are constant articles here being posted about surveillance, loss of privacy, etc. It's a whole lot easier to control the population when you gradually make it harder for them to travel unhindered and untracked. Chickens in a factory farm can be described as being in "livable" conditions. After all, they are still alive and healthy enough (for a controlled period of time.) They're only calling it a "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to discredit the other side. Who benefits from the propagation of this idea? Everyone who still believes in freedom.

dfiohnio 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Loocid 3y ago
Do you consider bike centric cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam not free? The concept of "cars == freedom" is completely absurd to me. The mode of transport that has a unique identifier printed on it, that you need a licence to drive that can be revoked, that you have to pay the government to use, is considered the beacon of free and open transport. In fact, many car centric city designs force you to own a car which seems like the opposite of freedom.
totetsu 3y ago
But how is advocating having a supermarket within walk-able distance from your home the same thing as making it hard to travel untracked?
JambalayaJim 3y ago
Urbanism is in fact premised on making it EASIER to move about unhindered
ComposedPattern 3y ago
> It's a whole lot easier to control the population when you gradually make it harder for them to travel unhindered and untracked. Cars are required to have registration and license plates, and most of them have GPS tracking as well. If you don't want to be tracked, ride a bicycle.
- userbinator 3y ago
  Plates are only visible from a line of sight (and there has been tons of opposition to automatically reading them with cameras, for good reason.) My car has GPS but that's just a receiver. Have you tried to take a 500-mile trip on a bicycle? While carrying a hundred pounds of luggage?

saalweachter 3y ago

It's not going to be true for every conspiracy or every conspiracy theorist, but like most things in the US you can connect a lot of dots with racism. In the Robert Moses era mass transit was destroyed because it benefited poor African American communities, and highways were put down to tear apart their neighborhoods. Today, people use "urban" as a dog whistle for "black". People decided the pandemic was no big deal and we should just let it rip in the US the moment early data showed it affected African Americans and other minorities more than whites. It may not be the true explanation all of the time, but if you ask yourself if there could be a racist motivation for adopting a particular set of odd views, it's amazing how easy it is to connect the dots.

userbinator 3y ago
You don't think blacks want to have cars too? This has nothing to do with race; that's just a distraction. As others have noticed, it's about corralling the population into more easily "managed" areas and depriving them of ownership.

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago

I suspect the car industry has a role. Also, these people live in the burbs, and their experience of driving into a city is their experience of the city. It's one of the reasons they hate cities. Driving in is confusing and stressful. Add an alien system of congestion pricing involving some transponder they've never seen before and it's just too much for them. To the extent that the concerns are legitimate, I think we need to look at China, and at the way people were locked down in small condo blocks during COVID. There was a fear that the same tactics would be employed in "Western" countries. There is an irony, however, which is that self-contained condo blocks and "gated communities" are at least as prone to this as are organic grids. Y'know -- actual good urbanism. Finally, I think they do perceive, in their own way, the housing crisis. They recognize that housing is generally more affordable outside cities, so they see the push towards cities as a push towards renting and non-ownership. I would prefer more affordable housing within cities, but I can sort of understand this argument.