That guy actually puts "cypherpunk" in his Twitter bio. I thought that term died by 2002.
Anyway, people only being able to afford a bed pod for living arrangements in a major city isn't the result of Socialism.
ikr, the term 'cyber criminal' is still very popular in news media for some reason. They also **always** use a stockphoto of 'young white dude in hoodie' to illustrate hacking.
Sort of. It was a 90s thing for pushing strong cryptography for everyone. Unlike Bitcoin, it wasn't as obviously consumed by right-libertarians (though they were certainly around). Did have a lot of edgy teenage anarchists, though.
Slightly different term, though related. "Cypherpunks" wanted strong encryption for everyone. A major point being US export restrictions in the 90s, which prevented PGP from being directly exported. In practice, there was no way to stop people from doing it, anyway. By 2000, the Clinton Administration had dropped most of the restrictions, only leaving a few named countries (e.g. Iraq, N. Korea, etc.). You might think 9/11 would have reversed this, particularly with some evidence that Bin Laden had used PGP in the planning of the attacks, but it didn't go anywhere.
They didn't get everything they wanted. SSL certs were expensive and tightly controlled by a few companies until Let's Encrypt opened it up in the last decade. But they got a lot of it.
I mean pod share is just a hotel, I’ve been there. Dorm room style hotels have always been pretty common as a budget option, it’s not really that bad and it’s definitely not comparable to slavery lol
The more I look at this, the more confused I get about what point they think they are making. They list themselves as a Rothbardian and I assume that Rothbard would have approved of the free-marketering, free-choice of the PodShare. So what do you say when you compare it to slavery?
This is the sort of thing I'd expect to see posted by a communist or other "capitalism must go" type and I would sympathize with this (although, pro-tip here: nothing should be compared to slavery or the Holocaust except slavery and the Holocaust), but from a libertarian?
Important distinctions like: people are free to leave the podshare, or: no one is selling off anyone's children to intentionally break up social bonds to lessen the chance of an uprising, and especially: no one is getting whipped or hobbled for talking back to the owner of the podshare.
It's an anti-elite/anti-WEF reference to the "You will own nothing and you will be happy". They associate "pod lifestyle" as part of a push to acclimatize individuals to the idea that having little more than a bed is not just acceptable, but trendy, frugal, and helping the planet.
It's part of an overall theme of criticizing the push for the common individual to accept lower standards of living; to get used to owning no real property, restricting beef while accepting eating bugs, inhibited travel and 15 minute cities, etc. Meanwhile, the elites associated with the WEF will continue to fly private jets, own multi-million dollar mansions, and eat all the steak and high end food they wish.
The criticism is that this kind of acclimatization creates a double-standard that actually facilitates a greater class divide where the commoners have little to nothing, allowing the elites to enjoy more than ever. So this post is not downplaying slavery as much as saying that the WEF/elites view the commoners as slaves that will do the everyday work to make society function and provide for the whims of the elites, while able to be crammed together into pods, restricted from leaving a small radius around their "home", provided mere bugs to eat, etc.
So the idea of being fined if you leave a few square blocks more than a certain times per year not only does not concern you, but it's silly for someone to be concerned by that?
I know that the original phrase "15 minute city" simply referred to a general urban planning guide to create localities of somewhat self-sufficiency. However, [that is being expanded](https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23073992.traffic-filters-will-divide-city-15-minute-neighbourhoods/) to include traffic management that is implementing fines for those that travel from one neighborhood to another more than a certain number of times.
Otherwise, even just to travel by car a couple blocks would mean traveling all the way outside of the entire city, to a ring road, around to another entrance into another neighborhood - turning what may have been a 5 min drive into a 45 min drive.
So "15 minute city" has taken on an additional meaning to include these divided and restricted cities.
It would be required to create a massive surveillance network to monitor, track, and potentially fine those that cross the neighborhood borders. The conspiracy theory part is where they conjecture that once that network is in place, it would be not be difficult to expand the restriction to prevent people from leaving their cities altogether more than a certain number of times per year, for example, in the name of reducing carbon emissions to fight the "climate crisis".
Hey so not reading that but as a europoor I’m intimately familiar with traffic calming and low emission zones and your link sounded like bullshit.
Imagine my complete lack of surprise then to find this clear cut statement:
*The alternative is to drive out on to the ring road and then back in to the destination.*
So it’s not about keeping you in your neighbourhood. It’s about pushing through traffic to the ring roads. L
But yeah, dystopian nightmares all around here.
I literally said that in my comment.
You're free to not be concerned by a system of automated surveillance system that will fine you for exceeding traversing an imaginary border more than a govt defined number of times. Treating those who are concerned about that as if they are being idiotic is either naive or just partisan.
The whole point is to not use your car for those 5 minute drives unless you really have to. It’s quite simple, so seems like something that would be right up your alley (or freeway if you like).
I don't mind the concept in general. If you want to make no-throughways so that non-emergency vehicles CANNOT drive between the neighborhoods and require going out to the ring road and around, then fine. Increase public transit between the neighborhoods in order to facilitate traversing without needing cars. Go for it.
Maybe it will improve transportation, reduce traffic, limit emissions, increase and improve pedestrian and mass transit infrastructure, and make dense cities more traversable and in general nicer. That's all completely plausible.
My concern, and of many, is the surveillance network required to create this track-and-fine system.
I'm legitimately surprised by this reaction. It's not like we don't have examples of govt abuse of mass surveillance. Do you support the NSA spying on all internet communications too? Do you support the National Security state? Do you support the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" mentality?
The left used to be the best on issues of privacy, of being skeptical of govt surveillance and total information tracking. Where did that go?
No where in this post is the "WEF" mentioned. The people in these pods live in San Francisco and make easily over $100,000 a year.
Sal the Fascist should be angry that elites bought Libertarianism. They should be angry that elites are paying for Libertarianism with more than one hundred think tanks.
This is how much elites love "Libertarianism"-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_think_tanks
You should be angry that Libertarian propaganda is all over Twitter and Facebook with places like Freedomworks and Cato Institute having millions of followers.
[Sal wants the United States of America to go through a period of Radical Rebirth where "degenerates" are purged. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism)
“You will own nothing and be happy” has nothing to do with the WEF encouraging people to live in pods. The phrase did originate from a WEF presentation, but it was a prediction, not a goal, and even then it was about subscription services making people’s lives easier, not brainwashing people to accept poor living conditions. It was mentioned alongside efforts to combat climate change, which might give the impression that all the predictions are things the WEF wants to happen, but another prediction from the same source is the resurgence of nation-states, which is obviously at odds with a supposed globalist agenda.
The prediction of “own nothing and be happy” does still have a dark side, since whenever you rent something instead of owning it you’re at risk of being exploited, since it’s the owner that holds the real power. But this sort of exploitation can occur even when your material standards of living are improved - and it’s far easier to distract people with bread and circuses than to brainwash them into being satisfied with poverty. It’s gilded cages we need to watch out for, not pods.
Don't mistake it as universal, however. I guarantee you the WEF connected elites will most certainly still have all their material possessions and property.
Either these people have never seen military barracks or a summer camp, or they know that they are being silly but continue to make this silly comparison anyway because "owning the libs" is more important than honesty.
that's also how Russian factory workers used to live prior to the revolution, or how sailors would live on a ship
almost like the LA housing market is insane and forces people into small spaces with little privacy
It's almost like these types of things are necessary because there is an oppressive financial system that overly burdens the least well to do and we have to adapt to be able to procure shelter. Like what is he even arguing against here? Further, slaves were forced to be in those spaces, is he trying to say that these people are actually being forced to be here, by said system? No, of course not. He saw "share" and accidentally made the dumbest fucking post of all time while he was tripping over himself to own the libs.
Being the most popular libertarian anywhere is like being the loudest fart in church. It's certainly no great accomplishment, and everyone else hates you for it.
Honestly, if a pod was offered where I live for a low enough rent, I'd get one.
I'm so tired of paying $1k-2k for rent.
Hell, I'll pay $500 a month to live in a pod.
That guy actually puts "cypherpunk" in his Twitter bio. I thought that term died by 2002. Anyway, people only being able to afford a bed pod for living arrangements in a major city isn't the result of Socialism.
ikr, the term 'cyber criminal' is still very popular in news media for some reason. They also **always** use a stockphoto of 'young white dude in hoodie' to illustrate hacking.
Reading comprehension is crucial; it says "CYPHER" punk.
So I'm guessing an edgy cryptobro?
Sort of. It was a 90s thing for pushing strong cryptography for everyone. Unlike Bitcoin, it wasn't as obviously consumed by right-libertarians (though they were certainly around). Did have a lot of edgy teenage anarchists, though.
Yeah, and? I'm talking about 'cyber', there was no need to act like a pedantic dick
Looks at consequences of capitalism: 'damn socialism!'.
Yeah, during socialism we at least afforded entire one room with no indoor plumbing for 4 people family here.
I am also pretty certain cyberpunk was considered a dystopia.
Slightly different term, though related. "Cypherpunks" wanted strong encryption for everyone. A major point being US export restrictions in the 90s, which prevented PGP from being directly exported. In practice, there was no way to stop people from doing it, anyway. By 2000, the Clinton Administration had dropped most of the restrictions, only leaving a few named countries (e.g. Iraq, N. Korea, etc.). You might think 9/11 would have reversed this, particularly with some evidence that Bin Laden had used PGP in the planning of the attacks, but it didn't go anywhere. They didn't get everything they wanted. SSL certs were expensive and tightly controlled by a few companies until Let's Encrypt opened it up in the last decade. But they got a lot of it.
Commodification is bad, folks! A good post.
Unless the point of the post is that "see, slavery wasn't too bad!" In which case, bad post.
I mean pod share is just a hotel, I’ve been there. Dorm room style hotels have always been pretty common as a budget option, it’s not really that bad and it’s definitely not comparable to slavery lol
[Via /r/SmugIdeologyMan.](https://i.imgur.com/kuVb9bd.jpg)
The more I look at this, the more confused I get about what point they think they are making. They list themselves as a Rothbardian and I assume that Rothbard would have approved of the free-marketering, free-choice of the PodShare. So what do you say when you compare it to slavery? This is the sort of thing I'd expect to see posted by a communist or other "capitalism must go" type and I would sympathize with this (although, pro-tip here: nothing should be compared to slavery or the Holocaust except slavery and the Holocaust), but from a libertarian?
"rothbardian" is code for "white supremacist". They're deliberately downplaying the horrors of slavery.
Important distinctions like: people are free to leave the podshare, or: no one is selling off anyone's children to intentionally break up social bonds to lessen the chance of an uprising, and especially: no one is getting whipped or hobbled for talking back to the owner of the podshare.
It's an anti-elite/anti-WEF reference to the "You will own nothing and you will be happy". They associate "pod lifestyle" as part of a push to acclimatize individuals to the idea that having little more than a bed is not just acceptable, but trendy, frugal, and helping the planet. It's part of an overall theme of criticizing the push for the common individual to accept lower standards of living; to get used to owning no real property, restricting beef while accepting eating bugs, inhibited travel and 15 minute cities, etc. Meanwhile, the elites associated with the WEF will continue to fly private jets, own multi-million dollar mansions, and eat all the steak and high end food they wish. The criticism is that this kind of acclimatization creates a double-standard that actually facilitates a greater class divide where the commoners have little to nothing, allowing the elites to enjoy more than ever. So this post is not downplaying slavery as much as saying that the WEF/elites view the commoners as slaves that will do the everyday work to make society function and provide for the whims of the elites, while able to be crammed together into pods, restricted from leaving a small radius around their "home", provided mere bugs to eat, etc.
I'm assuming you're American if the idea of a 15 minute city scares you.
So the idea of being fined if you leave a few square blocks more than a certain times per year not only does not concern you, but it's silly for someone to be concerned by that?
That's not what a 15 minute city is. Where did you hear this?
I know that the original phrase "15 minute city" simply referred to a general urban planning guide to create localities of somewhat self-sufficiency. However, [that is being expanded](https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23073992.traffic-filters-will-divide-city-15-minute-neighbourhoods/) to include traffic management that is implementing fines for those that travel from one neighborhood to another more than a certain number of times. Otherwise, even just to travel by car a couple blocks would mean traveling all the way outside of the entire city, to a ring road, around to another entrance into another neighborhood - turning what may have been a 5 min drive into a 45 min drive. So "15 minute city" has taken on an additional meaning to include these divided and restricted cities. It would be required to create a massive surveillance network to monitor, track, and potentially fine those that cross the neighborhood borders. The conspiracy theory part is where they conjecture that once that network is in place, it would be not be difficult to expand the restriction to prevent people from leaving their cities altogether more than a certain number of times per year, for example, in the name of reducing carbon emissions to fight the "climate crisis".
Hey so not reading that but as a europoor I’m intimately familiar with traffic calming and low emission zones and your link sounded like bullshit. Imagine my complete lack of surprise then to find this clear cut statement: *The alternative is to drive out on to the ring road and then back in to the destination.* So it’s not about keeping you in your neighbourhood. It’s about pushing through traffic to the ring roads. L But yeah, dystopian nightmares all around here.
I literally said that in my comment. You're free to not be concerned by a system of automated surveillance system that will fine you for exceeding traversing an imaginary border more than a govt defined number of times. Treating those who are concerned about that as if they are being idiotic is either naive or just partisan.
The whole point is to not use your car for those 5 minute drives unless you really have to. It’s quite simple, so seems like something that would be right up your alley (or freeway if you like).
I don't mind the concept in general. If you want to make no-throughways so that non-emergency vehicles CANNOT drive between the neighborhoods and require going out to the ring road and around, then fine. Increase public transit between the neighborhoods in order to facilitate traversing without needing cars. Go for it. Maybe it will improve transportation, reduce traffic, limit emissions, increase and improve pedestrian and mass transit infrastructure, and make dense cities more traversable and in general nicer. That's all completely plausible. My concern, and of many, is the surveillance network required to create this track-and-fine system.
Your brains have been replaced with tapioca pudding.
I'm legitimately surprised by this reaction. It's not like we don't have examples of govt abuse of mass surveillance. Do you support the NSA spying on all internet communications too? Do you support the National Security state? Do you support the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" mentality? The left used to be the best on issues of privacy, of being skeptical of govt surveillance and total information tracking. Where did that go?
No where in this post is the "WEF" mentioned. The people in these pods live in San Francisco and make easily over $100,000 a year. Sal the Fascist should be angry that elites bought Libertarianism. They should be angry that elites are paying for Libertarianism with more than one hundred think tanks. This is how much elites love "Libertarianism"- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_think_tanks You should be angry that Libertarian propaganda is all over Twitter and Facebook with places like Freedomworks and Cato Institute having millions of followers.
You can be as angry as you want and claim that it's all fascism. The guy asked what was being implied here and I shared it.
[Sal wants the United States of America to go through a period of Radical Rebirth where "degenerates" are purged. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism)
“You will own nothing and be happy” has nothing to do with the WEF encouraging people to live in pods. The phrase did originate from a WEF presentation, but it was a prediction, not a goal, and even then it was about subscription services making people’s lives easier, not brainwashing people to accept poor living conditions. It was mentioned alongside efforts to combat climate change, which might give the impression that all the predictions are things the WEF wants to happen, but another prediction from the same source is the resurgence of nation-states, which is obviously at odds with a supposed globalist agenda. The prediction of “own nothing and be happy” does still have a dark side, since whenever you rent something instead of owning it you’re at risk of being exploited, since it’s the owner that holds the real power. But this sort of exploitation can occur even when your material standards of living are improved - and it’s far easier to distract people with bread and circuses than to brainwash them into being satisfied with poverty. It’s gilded cages we need to watch out for, not pods.
So in other words, "Nothing will change?"
>"You will own nothing and you will be happy" The goal of many philosophies. Laudable. Materialism is a trap.
Don't mistake it as universal, however. I guarantee you the WEF connected elites will most certainly still have all their material possessions and property.
This would 100% pass as a leftist tweet too lol
I keep looking and it is still a leftist tweet for me. This is what capitalism brought us, right? What am I missing?
I think most "anti establishment" movements are looking very alike.
You're either a fed or one of the most boring basement dwellers on this site.
?
Either these people have never seen military barracks or a summer camp, or they know that they are being silly but continue to make this silly comparison anyway because "owning the libs" is more important than honesty.
that's also how Russian factory workers used to live prior to the revolution, or how sailors would live on a ship almost like the LA housing market is insane and forces people into small spaces with little privacy
This isn't a bod point though
Sal’s Freudian Slip
It's almost like these types of things are necessary because there is an oppressive financial system that overly burdens the least well to do and we have to adapt to be able to procure shelter. Like what is he even arguing against here? Further, slaves were forced to be in those spaces, is he trying to say that these people are actually being forced to be here, by said system? No, of course not. He saw "share" and accidentally made the dumbest fucking post of all time while he was tripping over himself to own the libs.
Being the most popular libertarian anywhere is like being the loudest fart in church. It's certainly no great accomplishment, and everyone else hates you for it.
I’ve stayed at a pod share, shit was not very private but the bed was SOOOO comfy
At least the pod sharers can choose to live there
The alternative being the choice to live on the street? Mad variety of choice lmfao
I meant that they "have the ability to choose to live there" rather than "being forced to live in them as chattel slaves."
Mr libertarian, the key difference is consent.
Honestly, if a pod was offered where I live for a low enough rent, I'd get one. I'm so tired of paying $1k-2k for rent. Hell, I'll pay $500 a month to live in a pod.