4 ms·

Put another way: "sensible discussion" is the reason why the US is stuck with car-dependent sprawl. The practical considerations were decided decades ago, and h

Put another way: "sensible discussion" is the reason why the US is stuck with car-dependent sprawl. The practical considerations were decided decades ago, and have been cargo culted into every facet of US urban and suburban design. Cars are the designated post-hoc rationalization for an environment that is almost exclusively built for them. If the "transgressive" tone of the conversation is the only takeaway you have, then perhaps you are not listening closely enough.

wilg 4y ago
This is exactly the type of pseudo-intellectual crap that I'm trying to wade through. You're trying to present the argument in exactly the same way I'm objecting to, like you're opening my eyes that I'm in the Matrix. That it's surprising or interesting to learn that the US is built around cars in many ways, and that's affecting my thinking such that I could not consider that cars are bad. Maybe I need to "listen" more closely, like I can't understand the secrets of the world that you are privy to. This is all intellectually dishonest masturbatory fluff.
- GaryNumanVevo 4y ago
  > This is word salad Is there anything you'd like me to clarify further for you?
  - wilg 4y ago
    I edited my post.
  - pxmpxm 4y ago
    It's not the ability comprehend what you wrote, but rather the content - the point you're making is the same cliche white-kid-from-the-suburbs-moves-to-a-city infallible argument ("you only need cars because the system makes you want cars"). There's decades of revealed preference for larger, more private housing, rather than density and mass transit, and that dynamic strongly correlates to income. Median household income in the states is nearly double of said demographic's mecca, the Netherlands, and I would bet my lunch money that car ownership and utilisation there goes up with income as well. So relatively dense places with relatively poor-er population will optimize towards mass transit and biking and what not, because people can't afford cars and larger houses to begin with.

wilg 4y ago

This is exactly the type of pseudo-intellectual crap that I'm trying to wade through. You're trying to present the argument in exactly the same way I'm objecting to, like you're opening my eyes that I'm in the Matrix. That it's surprising or interesting to learn that the US is built around cars in many ways, and that's affecting my thinking such that I could not consider that cars are bad. Maybe I need to "listen" more closely, like I can't understand the secrets of the world that you are privy to. This is all intellectually dishonest masturbatory fluff.

GaryNumanVevo 4y ago
> This is word salad Is there anything you'd like me to clarify further for you?
- wilg 4y ago
  I edited my post.
- pxmpxm 4y ago
  It's not the ability comprehend what you wrote, but rather the content - the point you're making is the same cliche white-kid-from-the-suburbs-moves-to-a-city infallible argument ("you only need cars because the system makes you want cars"). There's decades of revealed preference for larger, more private housing, rather than density and mass transit, and that dynamic strongly correlates to income. Median household income in the states is nearly double of said demographic's mecca, the Netherlands, and I would bet my lunch money that car ownership and utilisation there goes up with income as well. So relatively dense places with relatively poor-er population will optimize towards mass transit and biking and what not, because people can't afford cars and larger houses to begin with.