4 ms·

I live in Melbourne (and have for 15 years), so I'm not some rural hillbilly crying about cars per se - in fact I'm not even talking about cars: That placard li

by avazhi 2y ago

I live in Melbourne (and have for 15 years), so I'm not some rural hillbilly crying about cars per se - in fact I'm not even talking about cars: That placard literally says: 'Stay Home!' I think bicycle paths and pedestrian access to places is extremely important, and not just for the environment, but being told that I should 'stay home' as part of some bigger picture plan to combat climate change is absolutely redolent of bureaucratic authoritarianism and environmental tyranny, and it really isn't hard to imagine a scenario running from this placard and the idea behind it to one where traveling away from one's 'neighborhood' (as defined in the photo) is punishable.

em-bee 2y ago
so the presentation leaves a bit to be desired but you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. for one i don't think this poster is is presenting a government mandate but i believe it's a demand from people to the government to build like this (it's from the climate action museum, which, as far as i could tell is not supported by government) likewise it is not about forcing people to stay home but demanding the right for people to do so and live their daily life without having to travel every day. the title "stay home!" is an unfortunate choice. but to be fair, you also have to read the whole title: "your most radical move! stay home!" which clearly suggests that staying home is a choice you make (just like many of us refuse to return to work in the office) and not something forced on you from the outside. if you read anything else then you either miss the point or you are intentionally twisting it. do you think fighting against neighborhoods like this is going to help you prevent that dystopia that you seem to be afraid of? negative thinking is not going to help us make the world better. a commenter above mentions paris. i can share the exact same experience from vienna. literally. that's what we are talking about.
- em-bee 2y ago
  side note: when i lived in singapore i actually felt what it means not to be able to travel outside of city borders. i mean, yeah, you could travel, but you had to check a border crossing point, change currency, etc... it felt like a trap. china during covid was similar. just replace passport controls with vaccination checks every time you travel from one city to another. i believe many of the city states and islands would feel the same. even new zealand felt like that when your goal was to be among people. it is perfect to get away from people though.
- avazhi 2y ago
  I understand a lot of what you're saying, but the fact is that radical anything - whether it's the radical left or right, radical environmentalists, radical feminists, etc., are all ultimately trying to move their grievances and solutions into the mainstream. Just because the makers of the placard admit 'staying home' would be radical right now doesn't mean that they want it to stay that way - indeed political issues to some extent always begin as radical ideas and by definition those that are eventually accepted by a society are no longer seen as radical when they are accepted. You might try to say this is just a slippery slope argument, but they are already advocating for something they (and you) admit is radical - the only caveat is that they qualify it as being radical for now. Clearly if a few radical environmentalists 'stay home!' there isn't going to be a dent in any metric that these people swear by - staying home will only begin to affect things if many or most people do it, whether by choice or by force, and that's the kind of wholesale societal change that I find absolutely bonkers and terrifying.
alamortsubite 2y ago
> it really isn't hard to imagine a scenario running from this placard and the idea behind it to one where traveling away from one's 'neighborhood' (as defined in the photo) is punishable Please take a deep breath and step away from the Rupert Murdoch. This campaign is merely trying to get people invested in the areas in which they live, which is a noble goal. It's sad that some of the language it uses has been warped into trigger words by the media. Fear is a lucrative business.
- avazhi 2y ago
  > Please take a deep breath and step away from the Rupert Murdoch. On the off chance that you are actually attempting to persuade me in good faith, you might reconsider in the future the use of phrases like this one and the impact they are likely to have on a person, particularly if, while casting aspersions, they suggest a set of circumstances that aren’t true.
  - alamortsubite 2y ago
    Murdoch's outlets are prime purveyors of this particular conspiracy theory, but you're absolutely right I shouldn't have assumed they had a hand in how you developed your idea. I also agree it's a valid question as to whether the best way to reach someone down a rabbit hole is to gently cajole them or slap them in the face. Where in Melbourne did you see the placard?
  - defrost 2y ago
    Your position is perfectly understandable. As a fellow Australian I well recall earlier campaigns that started out seeking to modify behaviour and later devolved into draconian law. Recall the 1970s Life. Be In It campaign? Started innocently enough and before we knew what had happened there were Aerobics Internment Camps for the ice cream eaters and Big Sister MTV alertotainments from Oliver Newton Goebbels. Clearly I'm heavy with the sarcasm, there is a difference between enforcing policy with lawfare in the event of a life threatening health crisis such as COVID and doing the same in the event of a life threatening health crisis such as obesity, or a life threatening crisis such as AGW climate change. I do seem to recall that we (Australia) made it through the AIDS years and increasing road accidents with mostly public campaigns and not so much law. Probably the best path through public policy is to understand the issues, the risks, and to stay engaged at various levels of setting and enacting policy.

by avazhi 2y ago

em-bee 2y ago

so the presentation leaves a bit to be desired but you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. for one i don't think this poster is is presenting a government mandate but i believe it's a demand from people to the government to build like this (it's from the climate action museum, which, as far as i could tell is not supported by government) likewise it is not about forcing people to stay home but demanding the right for people to do so and live their daily life without having to travel every day. the title "stay home!" is an unfortunate choice. but to be fair, you also have to read the whole title: "your most radical move! stay home!" which clearly suggests that staying home is a choice you make (just like many of us refuse to return to work in the office) and not something forced on you from the outside. if you read anything else then you either miss the point or you are intentionally twisting it. do you think fighting against neighborhoods like this is going to help you prevent that dystopia that you seem to be afraid of? negative thinking is not going to help us make the world better. a commenter above mentions paris. i can share the exact same experience from vienna. literally. that's what we are talking about.

em-bee 2y ago
side note: when i lived in singapore i actually felt what it means not to be able to travel outside of city borders. i mean, yeah, you could travel, but you had to check a border crossing point, change currency, etc... it felt like a trap. china during covid was similar. just replace passport controls with vaccination checks every time you travel from one city to another. i believe many of the city states and islands would feel the same. even new zealand felt like that when your goal was to be among people. it is perfect to get away from people though.
avazhi 2y ago
I understand a lot of what you're saying, but the fact is that radical anything - whether it's the radical left or right, radical environmentalists, radical feminists, etc., are all ultimately trying to move their grievances and solutions into the mainstream. Just because the makers of the placard admit 'staying home' would be radical right now doesn't mean that they want it to stay that way - indeed political issues to some extent always begin as radical ideas and by definition those that are eventually accepted by a society are no longer seen as radical when they are accepted. You might try to say this is just a slippery slope argument, but they are already advocating for something they (and you) admit is radical - the only caveat is that they qualify it as being radical for now. Clearly if a few radical environmentalists 'stay home!' there isn't going to be a dent in any metric that these people swear by - staying home will only begin to affect things if many or most people do it, whether by choice or by force, and that's the kind of wholesale societal change that I find absolutely bonkers and terrifying.

alamortsubite 2y ago

> it really isn't hard to imagine a scenario running from this placard and the idea behind it to one where traveling away from one's 'neighborhood' (as defined in the photo) is punishable Please take a deep breath and step away from the Rupert Murdoch. This campaign is merely trying to get people invested in the areas in which they live, which is a noble goal. It's sad that some of the language it uses has been warped into trigger words by the media. Fear is a lucrative business.

avazhi 2y ago
> Please take a deep breath and step away from the Rupert Murdoch. On the off chance that you are actually attempting to persuade me in good faith, you might reconsider in the future the use of phrases like this one and the impact they are likely to have on a person, particularly if, while casting aspersions, they suggest a set of circumstances that aren’t true.
- alamortsubite 2y ago
  Murdoch's outlets are prime purveyors of this particular conspiracy theory, but you're absolutely right I shouldn't have assumed they had a hand in how you developed your idea. I also agree it's a valid question as to whether the best way to reach someone down a rabbit hole is to gently cajole them or slap them in the face. Where in Melbourne did you see the placard?
- defrost 2y ago
  Your position is perfectly understandable. As a fellow Australian I well recall earlier campaigns that started out seeking to modify behaviour and later devolved into draconian law. Recall the 1970s Life. Be In It campaign? Started innocently enough and before we knew what had happened there were Aerobics Internment Camps for the ice cream eaters and Big Sister MTV alertotainments from Oliver Newton Goebbels. Clearly I'm heavy with the sarcasm, there is a difference between enforcing policy with lawfare in the event of a life threatening health crisis such as COVID and doing the same in the event of a life threatening health crisis such as obesity, or a life threatening crisis such as AGW climate change. I do seem to recall that we (Australia) made it through the AIDS years and increasing road accidents with mostly public campaigns and not so much law. Probably the best path through public policy is to understand the issues, the risks, and to stay engaged at various levels of setting and enacting policy.