4 ms·
That's because the tone of "problems with cars in densely populated areas" and those discussing them tend to completely ignore the significant part of the popul
by mellosouls 4y ago
That's because the tone of "problems with cars in densely populated areas" and those discussing them tend to completely ignore the significant part of the population that the argument is redundant for.
- trgn 4y agoThey don't ignore that part of the population. It's just exhausting to always have to equivocate when it is the obvious. Yes, obviously, cars are a necessity in more remote places. Nobody's taking away your cars. Maybe this needs a shorthand. Just preface every discussion with "*not about you, fur trapper!"
- spacemadness 4y agoYes, talking about adding bike lanes in cities and improving public transportation should really infuriate the rural demographic that continually think everything is about them and their way of life. These ideas must all come from the cult of anti-car that wants to come into every tiny city and change everything overnight apparently. It’s typical status quo paranoia that always tries to halt any progress in these areas.
- mellosouls 4y agothe rural demographic that continually think everything is about them and their way of life Rubbish, these articles are nearly always written by and supported by the dominant voice in the mainstream media - young, liberal city-dwellers, who seem to have no concept that there is a huge part of the population who are funding their "progress", often at the expense of their own infrastructure and quality of life.
- spacemadness 4y agoI mean, sure, that is in fact the ridiculously paranoid narrative that keeps that argument afloat. Those damn city slickers.