3 ms·
Very weird logic. As the article points out, this is an intentional choice for many people. So you shoulder the consequences, that seems fair to me? I don't cu
by rs186 2y ago
Very weird logic. As the article points out, this is an intentional choice for many people. So you shoulder the consequences, that seems fair to me?
I don't currently drive a car, and to be honest, I have anxiety about driving. I could bitch about how US is hostile to people who don't drive, to the point that it's difficult to go to places/get things done, but that's useless. I can 1) move to NYC and never leave the city 2) get a car, work on my anxiety, and start enjoying life or 3) talk to Guardian and complain all day long. 1) is not actually a bad choice, and literally millions of people choose that, but I am working on 2) because that's the sensible thing to do. If I intentionally choose not to drive, not because of a physical disability or not being to afford a car, I bear the consequences.
- tim333 2y agoI do drive and the having do download a bunch of parking apps is a pain the arse. And for each one you have to spend five minutes entering your address card number etc.
- like_any_other 2y agoWe all shoulder the consequences of slowly sliding into a society of lock-in and surveillance, which is what unnecessarily requiring smartphones advances. That there are choices along the way doesn't make it fair - if I let you choose which of your fingers I cut off, am I being fair? Wait a few years, and the "choice" will be between living in the woods, and carrying an always-on telescreen with you at all times.
- rs186 2y ago> if I let you choose which of your fingers I cut off, am I being fair? That's not what we are discussing here. You can't use whatever irrelevant analogy you like to prove a point that doesn't exist.
- like_any_other 2y agoIt is not an analogy, it is a proof by example that 'choice' alone does not make something fair, contrary to your assertion.