you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Walkability has shitloads of benefits.

But what's with the wolf in a sheep costume with the red and green rectangles around their eyes?

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think it's a little confusing because the wolf being exposed is on the left and the text is above the other text, meaning you naturally want to read it first, but the idea is:

The innocent, green, good sheep is saying: Making cities walkable is great!
But it's secretly an evil wolf is disguise who has another agenda behind it: Using communism!!

... I don't really understand how one relates to another. I think you could plan your city around foot traffic and still have a free market with little to no starvation, citizen oppressions and gulags, but I think that's the gist it's gunning for.

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Zu vill live in apartments, zu vill eat de bugs, zu vill own nufin und zu will like it. -George Soros and other WEF members.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So the insinuation is that the foot traffic focused city is designed to reduce ownership of things?

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You won't have room for them in a one-room apartment. You will rent everything you use.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That kinda feels like extreme capitalism rather than communism, right? If I'm renting everything I own, someone is profiting, and it's not the people. Wouldn't the communist version be that I get a small, one room apartment and a number of goods assigned to me by the state?