Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Correct. And I'm not denying that we need more mass transportation, but if you tell people who want to keep their cars that they are wrong for thinking that way, you will lose potential supporters.
And before you say, "I didn't say that," a lot of people are, and a political movement is defined in the public eye by its most vocal members.
Edited by Fighteer on May 19th 2022 at 9:23:38 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"There will never be a point at which we upset exactly zero people who don't want the status quo to change. We needed to start making changes to infrastructure back in the 80s; we can't be proposing changes on a timescale of decades anymore.
Edited by RedSavant on May 19th 2022 at 6:29:42 AM
It's been fun.![]()
That's not actually been my experience. What I've seen is people saying "we should fund more public transit" and people immediately going "well what about people who need cars?" or losing their fucking minds over the idea of putting money into public infrastructure.
The places talking about actively trying to reduce the number of cars are generally in Europe or in places where it's not really...possible to beef up public transit more without removing more cars, like in New York City.
No one's saying that Mobile, Alabama needs to immediately dump all the cars, they're saying that Mobile, Alabama needs to beef up public infrastructure and New York City should incentivize people to use their cars less. It's a granular area by area thing and treating it like stuff advocated for New York is supposed to immediately apply everywhere else is disingenuous.
And this, totally this. There are still people now who pitch a fit at seatbelts. They are wrong and catering to them is mindbogglingly stupid. Sometimes, the only right thing to do is to force the situation and make it a settled question because a lot of the opposed people are operating in bad faith and will never agree to anything but giving them everything they want and then some.
And, I don't know about you, but "I refuse to capitulate to the people who refuse to acknowledge climate change or who refuse to do anything about it" is a much better position than "I refuse to give up my huge gas guzzling truck because it makes me feel manly" or "I refuse to do anything about climate change because that might lower my profits."
Edited by Zendervai on May 19th 2022 at 9:32:30 AM
So the government should ideally avoid saying anything about anything or attempt to convince people over time that a reduction in cars on the road in favor of a greater emphasis on public transportation in order to avoid substituting a total ecological collapse with a local ecological collapse note because it might test poorly with focus groups and because a small number of slightly more than left-of-center public figures have been talking about the logistical and environmental benefits of mass transit over an infrastructure system that has become increasingly reliant on the purchase, upkeep and maintenance of personal vehicles?
Is that the argument, or is there something here I'm not seeing? Because if that's the serious argument being put on the table here, I'm sorry, it's some actual clown shit.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.And right now is the perfect time to start pushing for it.
"Hey, we should build up public transit because gas is so expensive and, while we're at it, we'll fill in the gaps to prevent food deserts and strengthen the inter-city links."
A reminder of why public transit tends to be so unpopular in the US: it's racism. Like, full stop, that's why so many cities and towns have such bad public transit. The rich white people loathed the idea of poor PO Cs being able to take the bus into their neighborhoods.
You really think we should cater to that crowd, which totally still exists, by the way? They're the loudest voices when it comes to the anti-public transit lobby.
Edited by Zendervai on May 19th 2022 at 9:42:54 AM
Or, maybe, we should give a consumer who is looking at their next car purchase an available, high quality EV option without making them feel guilty about driving a car in the first place.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
And why should that be mutually exclusive with expanding public transport?
The problem with cars isn't just the environment, it's also urban planning that actively excludes people who can't drive for whatever reason, and removes shared public spaces.
Edited by minseok42 on May 19th 2022 at 11:07:48 PM
"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory Doctorow
x5 Or maybe we can cater to the needs of multiple types of people at once and forcing the topic into a binary choice with only one solution makes no sense.
And where is this "make them feel guilty" stuff coming from? Because frankly that sounds more like a personal problem.
Where doe? Who is saying this?
Edited by PhysicalStamina on May 19th 2022 at 10:10:24 AM
Do not spare the feelings of those who would not spare yours.Way to entirely sidestep the entire discussion and flatten it out into meaninglessness again, Fighteer. You fucking suck at these discussions, you refuse to talk about the nuance to it.
You refuse to stop trying to make public transit vs electric cars into a binary problem, when it isn't. Increase public transit and incentivize electric cars at the same time. Yeah, a lot of people will just stop using cars entirely. That's good. People who need cars will switch to electric. That's also good.
Electric cars only is a dumb as hell solution that will not solve the problems of urban layout, people who cannot drive for whatever reason, the inevitable power deserts where charging is not an option for whatever reason. You can't just advocate for exclusively electric cars and prove you care at all about the people left out, at minimum, you must actively advocate for both electric cars and intelligently designed and laid out public transit.
Edited by Zendervai on May 19th 2022 at 10:10:04 AM
Cars require inordinate amounts of flat, empty land (highways, roads, parking lots) that are covered over with carcinogenic tar and create vast, unwalkable empty spaces in the middle of cities. Buses also require roads, sure, but the return on investment is much higher, and it doesn't require basically every citizen to pass a driver's test and own (and maintain) an individual vehicle.
It's been fun."People should be provided with less incentive to use or own cars" is not the same thing as "disincentivize anyone from purchasing any car in any situation", and I don't really think incentivizing people to buy different types of cars (however healthier they might be for the environmenbt) from the private sector can be the only solution or the one we should be giving the most attention to.
Edited by Draghinazzo on May 19th 2022 at 11:13:38 AM
So no one, then? The problem is not "people using gas cars is bad, so just buy electric cars", the problem is "the way infrastructure works right now is that people are incentivized to use cars because cars are incentivized by terrible public transportation and walkability, and gas cars are bad but also a bigger part of the car market, so more people will buy and use them". I thought that was pretty clear.
Right. Edited.
Edited by Altris on May 19th 2022 at 7:20:21 AM
So, let's hang an anchor from the sun... also my TumblrNobody's going to put a gun to your head and take your car away, but maybe, just maybe, investing in proven public infrastructure is better than pouring more government funds into EV's and hoping tech alone will save us.
Because it won't. This really is some clown shit.
Edited by math792d on May 19th 2022 at 4:21:32 PM
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.As mentioned earlier, one "fun" bit about electric cars and green tech is that overrelying on that is also bad. Because they're a disaster for the places the minerals are sorted from.
We need to use that stuff, but it's best to come up with the most efficient, workable solutions. One electric bus can transport hundreds of people over the course of a day for the same mineral resource cost as three or four cars, maybe, each of which will transport maybe two or three people on average. And one full bus load is equivalent to taking 10 cars off the road, so a bus running all day might well be equivalent to taking hundreds of cars off the road that day. And if you design the infrastructure right, you might not need lithium batteries at all for a bus, completely avoiding the mineral sourcing problem. (Many places already use overhead electric wires to power buses, trolleys and short-haul trains, it's not perfect, but it's absolutely a viable solution for now)
Redesign things so cars aren't necessary and the problem of too many cars will start to take care of itself.
Edited by Zendervai on May 19th 2022 at 10:45:17 AM

The amount of land given over to moving cars, parking cars, and in general servicing cars in US cities is somewhat ridiculous.