this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
1240 points (96.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9670 readers
39 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I struggle to think how you see a generic statement about improving public transit and immediately go to "but what about the places where it cant help?"

Well shit Einstein, I suppose this is just referring to places where it does then.

Your comment does nothing to support or contradict the idea we should improve public transport...

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It was more about the "we need both" parts.

Though, dismissing the some half of the country that lives in rural areas is kind of why politics is what it is I guess.

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Less than 20% of people live in rural areas in the USA.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Fair, but you add suburban about a third live urban. And realistically, connecting suburbs to a system that is anywhere comparable to cars is also pretty expensive.

[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

True, but catering to people who make poor life choices also isn’t sustainable. Living in a rural area and having many kids are both choices. I few people should be able to make those choices, and should also be responsible for paying for them

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

True, but catering to people who make poor life choices also isn’t sustainable.

I'm super curious, do you know/realize that's pretty much the conservative perspective on a bunch of issues (with which I also disagree.)

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't think it is, the conservative perspective is that you should have to pay to live, while this guy is just saying that you should have to pay to live the way you want if that way is expensive.

The problem with conservatism is that we are subsidizing people living in the equivalent of downtown penthouses in cost because it's tradition, instead of the people in the streets.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't think it is, the conservative perspective is that you should have to pay to live

Yes, and as conservatives see it, jobs are available and it's on you to get one and support yourself and/or your family. If you can't afford a family, it's not on the state to subsidize yours.

Such is the conservative answer to addiction/homelessness, healthcare, education and pretty much everything else.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago

So my take is that there is a difference between saying "if you can't afford to feed your family, starve", and "if you can't afford a lifestyle that's decidedly much more expensive than that of most people, get a cheaper living".

TBH in my perfect world, you would get free room and board in high density housing for free without stigma, and you could work to get something better. Does saying "I don't want to pay to sustain people's expensive rural lifestyles, I'd rather the money would go to help more people for whom not getting help means starving instead of moving" make me a conservative?

[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Improving public transit does nothing to impact rural area car travel. Saying we need both on a comment how we should improve public transport is replying to something not at task here.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Maybe you should look at the post again? I'm agreeing with OP who posted the meme with the note "Both is good" and I agreed.

Are you maybe confused and thinking you're in a different thread?

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

The point is the post seems to minimize improve cars in favor of mass transit. The post didn't start with we need both, it started with "get rid of cars" as the general sentiment.

Which is a fine sentiment in city centers, but that's only a piece of things. Incidentally, I think the cities are generally trying to build out that transit.