4 ms·

Why? So that people can be forced to live in cramped cities, constantly share their space with rude, smelly, or violent strangers, and suffer the loss of freedo

Why? So that people can be forced to live in cramped cities, constantly share their space with rude, smelly, or violent strangers, and suffer the loss of freedom that necessarily entails? Not all of us are so enthralled with the rest of us. At some point in the last decade, I went from wanting to be constantly surrounded by others (youthful insecurity) to having my own life, doing my own thing, and not wanting to deal with other people’s bs. The very wealthy can have a similar experience living in a city, but for everyone else, it means loss of independence and freedom. Plenty of people accept those tradeoffs, but please don’t shove it down the the rest of our throats.

Frondo 7y ago
I can walk 10 minutes to get on a train that gets me many places in the city, 5 minutes in a different direction to get on multiple buses to go places the trains don't. No need to worry about parking. Need something from the grocery store? 5 minute walk. Need something late at night? Store's still open, still a 5 minute walk. Need food late at night? I have the freedom of choice. I feel no loss of independence by having city life all around me. If anything, living in a city has greatly improved my freedom. I don't need a car to get most places, I can do a variety of art and culture virtually every day of the week. If I wanted to do large woodcrafts, access a tool library, access a laser cutter or a 3d printer, there's a maker's co-op about a 15 minute walk from my place with far more tools than I'd ever be able to amass even in a suburban house. You may not prefer city life, but in no way does it represent a lack of independence or freedom.
- marcoperaza 7y ago
  I live in a city right now, and sure, the grocery store is right there, but it’s also very expensive and has a tiny selection. I can get all of the same foods for much less in the suburbs and much more conveniently than carrying several heavy bags for multiple blocks. Anyhow, I’m not saying there aren’t reasons to want to live in a city. I’m saying there are also good reasons not to want to, and I’m reacting to the suggestion that the means to do so be abolished.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    Getting in a car and driving a couple of miles through stop signs, traffic lights, winding suburban boulevards, and cul-de-sacs is more convenient than a five minute walk to the store? Or, if you're really in a rural area, getting in the car and driving for 30 minutes to get to the nearest small grocery store, as opposed to a five minute walk? That is a statement I do not understand at all. (I've lived in suburbia, and rural America too, both in rich rural American and poor rural America. All of them are horrible for day-to-day living compared to anywhere I've ever lived in a city.)
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

Frondo 7y ago

I can walk 10 minutes to get on a train that gets me many places in the city, 5 minutes in a different direction to get on multiple buses to go places the trains don't. No need to worry about parking. Need something from the grocery store? 5 minute walk. Need something late at night? Store's still open, still a 5 minute walk. Need food late at night? I have the freedom of choice. I feel no loss of independence by having city life all around me. If anything, living in a city has greatly improved my freedom. I don't need a car to get most places, I can do a variety of art and culture virtually every day of the week. If I wanted to do large woodcrafts, access a tool library, access a laser cutter or a 3d printer, there's a maker's co-op about a 15 minute walk from my place with far more tools than I'd ever be able to amass even in a suburban house. You may not prefer city life, but in no way does it represent a lack of independence or freedom.

marcoperaza 7y ago
I live in a city right now, and sure, the grocery store is right there, but it’s also very expensive and has a tiny selection. I can get all of the same foods for much less in the suburbs and much more conveniently than carrying several heavy bags for multiple blocks. Anyhow, I’m not saying there aren’t reasons to want to live in a city. I’m saying there are also good reasons not to want to, and I’m reacting to the suggestion that the means to do so be abolished.
- Frondo 7y ago
  Getting in a car and driving a couple of miles through stop signs, traffic lights, winding suburban boulevards, and cul-de-sacs is more convenient than a five minute walk to the store? Or, if you're really in a rural area, getting in the car and driving for 30 minutes to get to the nearest small grocery store, as opposed to a five minute walk? That is a statement I do not understand at all. (I've lived in suburbia, and rural America too, both in rich rural American and poor rural America. All of them are horrible for day-to-day living compared to anywhere I've ever lived in a city.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]