4 ms·
And there goes every single rational for having a security team at the disaster bunkers the billionaires are building
by wonderwonder 1mo ago
And there goes every single rational for having a security team at the disaster bunkers the billionaires are building
- bpodgursky 1mo agoIf civilization collapses, the billionaires are correctly assuming the security team will stop following SEIU strike authorization protocol.
- ceejayoz 1mo agoThey are perhaps incorrectly assuming the security team with all the weaponry will remain loyal to them.
- bpodgursky 1mo agoSure. Who knows. But, historically, strongmen/chieftains have not had incredible trouble keeping their goons under control. Most threats from from palace coups not popular revolt. Most normal people in uncertain times like order and aren't going to flip the table on a system that gives them stability, food and shelter.
- ceejayoz 1mo ago> But, historically, strongmen/chieftains have not had incredible trouble keeping their goons under control. Sure. But some of them seize power from others on their way up via force.
- nemomarx 1mo agoWould "one of you promises the security team better conditions if they kill a rival" not be how palace coups usually work?
- GolfPopper 1mo agoMy recollection from Roman history is that was certainly a part of it, but that 'I command the palace guard, so I should command the empire' also played a large role.
- stymaar 1mo ago> historically, strongmen/chieftains have Yup, but those aren't the same people as the one who get to become tech billionaires.
- sensanaty 1mo agoAnd these meek little SV nerds are strongmen?
- john_strinlai 1mo agothat's probably dependent on the specific genre of collapse we get to enjoy
- dayvid 1mo agoJust pay them well enough. Or pay the people at the top a good amount of money to keep the people below in check and have some hope you can rise to the top for a small portion of the people.
- derwiki 1mo agoThey’ll be armed Boston Dynamics robots soon
- toomuchtodo 1mo agoBunker busters are not picky, and can be safely delivered from altitude autonomously.
- wrash-qwtr 1mo agoThat is why you need The Boring Company to drill your private bunker beneath a granite mountain. No bunker buster is going to reach the middle of a Swiss tunnel.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- jcranmer 1mo agoThey'll thank you for digging your own grave and complete it for you by collapsing the entrance.
- Razengan 1mo agoWould be nice if this kind of hate energy was directed at politicians, the military-industrial complex, and faceless oil barons once in a while.
- nathan_compton 1mo agoWhy not all of them, you know?
- kridsdale1 1mo agoIt has been for 120 years.
- philipallstar 1mo agoPresumably they'll have stuff there the security team wants.
- deadbunny 1mo agoThe security team have guns and aren't given a 2nd thought, kinda invisible even. They don't need to negotiate.
- zbentley 1mo agoLike security guards' families. Awful, but not without historical precedent.
- philipallstar 1mo agoI did almost write that! But if disaster really strikes, then just resources will be useful.
- Tade0 1mo agoFear the security guard who has nothing to lose.
- somenameforme 1mo agoWhich precedent? Grunts under coercion has a rich history that's still ongoing, but these sort of guards are those that would have both weapons and the guarded in their direct vicinity. I can't think of any historic example where this wasn't the loyalest of the loyal types.
- jcranmer 1mo agoThere are plenty of people who have been killed by their own bodyguards, e.g., Indira Gandhi.
- somenameforme 1mo agoYes, but in those cases - the assassinated generally trusted those who were assassinating them. If you're holding somebody's family hostage or otherwise coercing them, there's no trust and you're gonna get killed. Grunts are regularly mistreated and coerced. You can kidnap people off the streets, throw them in a trench and make sure they don't run away by the presence of "motivational troops" in the rear (who kill their own side for fleeing) but you don't let those sort of troops anywhere remotely near the people responsible for their predicament for very obvious reasons, let alone when armed.
- tracerbulletx 1mo agoThere have been plenty of times in history (almost all times) that physically weaker men have secured the loyalty of soldiers with wealth and influence during periods where strong centralized civic authorities did not exist.
- js8 1mo agoBut the soldiers didn't have the mobile phones then. This was possible by manipulation the information about reality those soldiers had. For example, how Mallory can gain power over Alice and Bob who don't directly communicate. First, Mallory tells Alice: "I am stronger than you. If you don't do what I say I'll kill you." So Alice decides to submit. Then, Mallory takes Alice to Bob and says to him: "Together with Alice we are stronger than you, and kill you if you don't do what I want." So Bob submits. This only works if Bob doesn't talk to Alice, otherwise they would together see the empty threat. With more people, it becomes a bit trickier but hopefully you see how blocking communication helps to gain power over people. Often the blocking of communication is done through propaganda, e.g. Mallory might entice Alice and Bob to hate each other, so they wouldn't get together and figure he's the manipulator. Or Mallory might just kill someone randomly to motivate people not to talk to each other. Anyway, this shows the importance of free speech (which is really a misnomer; it should be called a right to listen). If you can freely talk (and listen) to other people, you reduce your chances to being subjugated by someone. (This is also why in a war, people are incentivized to dehumanize the other party and not to listen what they say, because together they could figure out that the real enemy are the war profiteers on both sides, colluding. And besides, killing is the most reliable way of silencing someone. That's why people should also universally reject killing - based on someone else's word - unless they are directly threatened themselves.)
- applfanboysbgon 1mo agoSorry, but I think you've kind of just dug yourself into some concept you think is neat but which doesn't really hold up. Like, this just doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. First, general power dynamics are in no way inherently predicated on misinforming people. That can help, but it's really quite a lot simpler than that: A commands B and C. A approaches D and says get in line or we'll kill you. D says OK or dies. ABCD approach E and repeat this process. The person with the most connections, actual real connections, wins. The challenge to building more connections than A is not having a cell phone, but rather attempting to find connections who aren't truly loyal to A, because anyone who is loyal will out you and have you killed for treason. Indeed cell phones make this harder, not easier, because they leave a paper trail of evidence that you were attempting to betray the existing group. Second, mobile phones do nothing to change this dynamic in favor of the weak, and in fact, are one of the most powerful tools for cementing existing power structures ever created. They are both the ultimate channel to propagate misinformation, and are also 24/7 surveillance devices that will betray any attempt to conspire against those in power. If you want to foster rebellion against your evil overlords, your organization absolutely cannot use phones without giving themselves away, which puts you at a massive technical disadvantage. And even if you try to forbid members from using phones, they're so deeply ingrained into daily life that somebody will inevitably slip up and give the surveillance state info on your planned rebellion. I would go so far as to say we can expect to never see a successful rebellion against anybody with the level of surveillance as the US, in our lifetimes.
- sailfast 1mo agoDon’t think those folks are union…
- malfist 1mo agoCongratulations! Your head of security has been elected president of the bunker. For your protection, no further votes will be taken
- ihsw 1mo ago[dead]
- matheusmoreira 1mo agohttps://www.apollon-dossier.de/dossier-ix/apocalypse-dos-and-do-nots-2-1 https://www.apollon-dossier.de/dossier-ix/apocalypse-dos-and...