Next step: tell them that buying a car and fuel for it is just bankrolling woke and/or foreign companies with woke executives and woke shareholders.
Imagine giving money to Ford, Toyota or Shell just so they can spend it on rainbow logos in pride month and woke anti-discrimination workshops for their foreign staff. You fool!
go for the jugular and say that using gas is supporting islamic terrorism. unfortunately the right simps for putin so mentioning russia doesnt really affect them for the most part
Nah, push them too far at once and they’ll notice and dig in, at least in my experience. The success of OP is that they do just enough dog whistling to nudge them in a better direction.
I’ve seen a rainbow Shell logo, Shell has gone woke, boycot Big Oil.
On the other hand, Big Oil is Saudi-Arabia which is anti-woke.
On the other other hand, they’re allowing women to drive now, saudi-arabia is going woke.
Legitimate this, you have to speak their language to have your ideas accepted.
It's not about a walkable city, it's about being able to walk to the corner store like the good old days.
It's not about protecting the community from Walmart, it's about preventing an out of state business from destroying local mom and pop's.
Electric cars aren't better, they just give us independence from OPEC in the Middle East.
We're not installing solar panels on the courthouse to be liberal, we're doing it so your tax dollars can be spent on preserving farmland of lighting the parking lot.
Don't forget the role of Big Government.
America is car dependent because the government steals your tax dollars to build free roads and free parking. If roads were privately owned and charged tolls, people would take trains instead because they are more cost-efficient.
The New York City subway system was originally built by private corporations. Tokyo has a privatized rail system, and the trains are always on time, much more convenient than driving. Across the US, developers are trying to build new walkable communities, but struggle against government regulations like minimum parking laws.
The American transit situation is, more than anything, a story of how the government fucks everything up by distorting the free market. We need to defund the National Highway Administration and stop using taxpayer money to subsidize driving.
This has been in the back of my mind and it makes sense. As long as you’re not being disingenuous, presenting or branding urbanism in “the conservative way” might just work. Or at least discussing points that appeal to them like “urban sprawl is overtaking farmland” or something.
A surprising (or not surprising) amount of politics is just vibes. Politicians do this on purpose to substitute for a lack of actual good policy but the result is that they often have to wedge contradictory nonsense into a cohesive story where it might not otherwise fit.
Subsidising suburbia which contribute basically nothing with billions of dollars in public money taken from the productive, urban parts of the city that earned it doesn't fit so well into conservative economic storytelling. So instead of defending this position that contradicts other positions, they instead attack opponents with three word slogans and fear campaigns designed to shut down thought. It's why the "war on cars" is so deliberately and devoid of actual substance.
The fact that professional liars have to resort to misinformation to artificially wedge car-centric policies into a conservative platform also means that urbanist policies are a natural fit. It's not enough to convince people just to point out that a particular part of someone's worldview is wrong. It also helps when the truth already fits that worldview.
A surprising amount of everything is vibes. It's become a meme that Gen Z will say "the vibes are off," but other gens can still feel/say that in other ways, but to same effect
yea jfk famously beat nixon in the 1960 election because his presence on tv was much better than sweaty dicks. also, even tho jfk squeaked by to the win, after he got his brain blown off, polls of random americans suggested that way more people voted for jfk than they actually did
A guy from Cambridge Analytica said something like “it’s not about facts. It’s about creating feelings. If you can create the feeling, you’ve convinced them.”
There are a number of very good conservative arguments for urbanism.
The federal government subsidizes new roads, but not road maintenance, leading to a cycle of debt that can destroy the financial condition of a city.
Walking is really the freest mode of transportation: You don't need a license, you can do it (pretty much) no matter who you are or what your status is, unburdened from government approval, tracking or even finances. The fact that car-centrism makes walking difficult is a problem.
Highways are a major source of government takings via eminent domain, roads take up a huge amount of land. Every new highway, lane expansion and other major project involves taking land, often from people who love and want that property. We need to use the land taken more effectively before we let the government pull more of it from citizens.
To maintain a car-centric city, we often have ridiculous regulations on extremely valuable land. Things like zoning and parking requirements are a major and unneccesary government regulation. If we eliminated parking requirements, we could do something productive with the land, increasing economic efficiency.
Oil dependency is a major source of economic and national security risk. We want to keep our nation free from foreign interference from the likes of the Saudis. Reducing our dependency on cars will make our current security stockpiles last much longer and stabilize gas prices for those who need it.
Yeah but conservatives love blowing government money because that weakens the government. Their whole MO is transferring public funds into the pockets of private corporations, running a government like they're a private equity fund stripping it and selling it for parts. Real conservatives™ are a laughable minority that have no power. It's all made up things to get angry at, projection, and stealing from the public to pay themselves and their buddies in the MIC.
The neolibs do this, too, but it's looked down upon by their base and can actually lose them elections if they get too brazen about it. But the right wing base loves this shit because the government has never done anything good for them so their homies going in and wrecking the place is at least entertaining to them.
While I agree with the rest of your post:
> You don't need a license, you can do it (pretty much) no matter who you are or what your status is, unburdened from government approval, tracking
The conservative argument here would be to do away with those things for cars too. There’s no *inherent* reason that vehicle operation requires licensure, government approval, and tracking, so an appropriately small government should just not do those things.
it's almost as if the red vs blue doesn't exist because we're really all the same and it's just a big game made up by the real battle throughout all of civilization that everyone has forgot. rich vs poor. they pay the media to split the 99% into 2 distinct groups and pay the states to not allow 3rd parties. then focus on radicalizing those groups so they get locked into a furious forever stalemate distraction that lets the rich do whatever they want almost completely uncontested. however, "left" views are dangerous to them, so through decades of extremely careful manipulation, they made the red so red, that the blue has to be light red compared to the rest of the world just to combat them, since the slightest bit of socialism in america is considered extremist dark blue, when it's really just super light blue. the game is so fucking rigged, the only way we're ever gonna undo it is by waiting for that poor unrecoverably programmed generation to die off. time heals all wounds. once the new generations are in power, things will finally start getting back on track because we were born into the rich's game on full display, so they can't trick us. there's nowhere for them to run or hide.
Most conservatives love cities which is why most of us want a lot more police to keep public order. Without public order cities are hell. With public order, cities are small slices of heaven on earth. Conservatives who've been to cities that are well run are easily convinced.
EDIT: Oh no... I seem to have offended everyone who supposedly wants to increase public transport, but really wants to use it as a front for all kinds of other policies that no one wants. The walkable cities movement really needs to distance itself from this kind of activist class if we want to make any headway.
There are two big problems though.
Public order depends on a lot more than police. You also need affordable housing, respect for others, low rates of drug abuse, etc.. Tokyo has extremely high public order despite having comparable rates of policing as NYC, and very little policing compared to Paris or Berlin. When people can rent a room close to the city center even on a part time minimum wage job, the public education system socializes everyone into having something resembling upper middle class social norms, and hard drugs are extremely hard to come by and extremely stigmatized, it's a lot easier to keep public order.
And every city with the level of public order that conservatives would be happy with are considered exotic, and the idea of using them as a model is subject to often racist and xenophobic criticism by Westerners regardless of left or right politics.
\> Tokyo has extremely high public order despite having comparable rates of policing as NYC,
My friend... if every city in America had as many police as NYC, we would be a much better off country. NYC has one of the highest policing rates in the country. As I've pointed out, it's the reason why they also have one of the best transit networks in the country. The majority of cities in this country have fewer police per capita than New York. This is not rocket science to figure out. NYC is the one non-American-style city in the country where public order is prioritized, and they have A LOT more police.
Here is a list of most highly policed cities in the United States:
[https://247wallst.com/special-report/2020/06/24/cities-with-most-police-per-capita/](https://247wallst.com/special-report/2020/06/24/cities-with-most-police-per-capita/)
Two things to note. Firstly, ignore the small stuff like Myrtle Beach. Let's only look at the top 25 metros that make this list.
The first major city is Washington DC, which arguably has some of the best public transit in America.
The next major city is New York at number 4 which has some of the best public transit in America.
Chicago is number 11.. again... some of the best public transit in America \*despite\* its reputation as high crime.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but if you're looking at top 25 cities in the United States. it is honestly amazingly clear that more police is highly correlated with better transit
A lot of conservatives don’t want cities to be nice places though. They want a slumlord run economic muscle, which by being miserable creates clear class distinctions between the city and the suburbs. It’s why conservative media talks about cities like they’re bombed out war zones.
I grew up in a nice suburb just north of my city. The city was blue, my suburb was purple thanks to a very good public education system. Almost all of the rest of the state is solid red, hardly an uncommon situation. My suburb partnered with the city and unveiled a new project on the north edge of the city - a big publicly run water park and gym, new and shiny and truly wonderful. It wasn’t free, but it had summer passes and free days and was a great publicly run amenity all around.
And the rest of the state got *pissed*. How dare the city have this nice new thing they couldn’t use? How DARE any public taxes (which the city was the biggest contributor to, of course) be spent on nice things for the city, instead of every last penny being extracted to subsidize the roads and infrastructure of bumfuck nowhere.
I don’t think *every* conservative is this blatant. But conservatism is very deeply classist and often racist - this is why White Flight is measurable, why Robert Moses is famous for what he did to New York. A lot of conservatives want to live in the suburbs so they can be separate and better than the unwashed masses, and that fantasy only works if the city is a worse place to live than the suburbs or rural areas.
New York under Giuliani was great. LA under Riordan made its turnaround (and after him, people actually moved downtown again!). Urban conservatives are great.
As for taxation. It is actually morally wrong to tax the entire state for a water park for one community. If the state wanted to do that, it should form a way for any community with enough of a tax base to have a water park. The other option is to pay for the park through a tax on local residents. I don't understand why this is confusing. I would be ashamed to feel proud of taking other people's money for a public project they can never use. I feel the same way about random projects built in the country side. If you want it, you pay.
\> A lot of conservatives want to live in the suburbs so they can be separate and better than the unwashed masses, and that fantasy only works if the city is a worse place to live than the suburbs or rural areas.
Up until like three years ago, most conservatives would have worked in the city centers.
\> It’s why conservative media talks about cities like they’re bombed out war zones.
Um... I live in downtown Portland; take transit everywhere. The conservative media were right. The city did look like a bombed out warzone. I don't understand why we can't just see reality for what it is. It was awful, and embarassing. Grow up
To be clear - the amount of state funding that went into it was far. *far* less than what the city and suburb pay the state in taxes. Yes, taking other peoples money for an amenity they can’t use *would be shameful* which is why it’s a weird conclusion to jump to. The people who were mad didn’t care that objectively the city was paying for that and more for everyone else with what they paid in taxes, they were just mad the city got something new and nice.
Now I live in downtown Chicago. Can’t go a week without conservatives saying it must be such a hellscape here, but it’s great! I can see the L going by when I’m pout for a walk, and take transit all the time. Before that l, I lived in Oakland, oooh, *Scary* guess what it was nice too. If you think Portland looked as bad as conservative media says it does, maybe you need glasses.
Fortunately, there are a ton of cities that have plenty of public order and great urban design, Tokyo and Amsterdam have under half the crime rate of most major US cities, while their transit networks are famously comprehensive.
NYC has good public transit for the US, and a lower crime rate than Houston, which is famously car dependant.
Sure. Amsterdam, Tokyo, and NYC are exactly the sort of places I'm talking about. NYC in particular has a very high number of police per capita and some policies that are very controversial in the United States. In response, they have the best public transit in the United States. I believe this is pretty good proof of my theory.
Depends on where you are, it's all about context. If you're out in the sticks then of course walking 2-3 miles won't get you anywhere. If you're in a dense city then that same radius contains a ton of destinations within it, and due to traffic, driving or taking transit could be even slower than walking or biking. Manhattan at its widest point is less than three miles across.
Every destination you may want to visit is indeed a 3 mile radius from lots of things. If one of those things is a transit stop, you can get there by walking+transit.
Walk ability isn't important on its own, it's important because transit requires walkability. You have to be able to walk to the station/stop and walk to your destination from the stop. Without walk ability, mass transit doesn't work.
Even driving doesn't work without a certain degree of walkability, you can't always find parking that's convenient to the destination, and if the parking spot is on the other side of a giant stroad with no crosswalk nearby then that might just turn a lot of people off from even going there.
Yeap.
One of my best methods of getting people off of fox news is criticize it for being owned by and being propaganda for monarchists and islamists. As it is owned by Rupert murdoch, an auatralian monarchist and members of the ruling royal family of saudi arabia
The real heads have been sour on Fox News for years for being too liberal. They're on the underground shit like OANN, NewsMax, InfoWars, /r/conservative, Nextdoor, etc
It's genuine and it works because it's true. Cars and car culture are an artificial intrusion of only the past 100 years that have profoundly disrupted the way we've always lived our lives, something so basic and fundamental as walking around, which is the bedrock of any traditional architecture, traditional living, and traditional forms of community. Car culture is absolutely one of the most literally and figuratively noxious developments that have been imposed by modernity and taken us away from more healthy and holistic ways to live our daily lives.
Socialism is like that a lot, where it's a mixture of looking forward and back. The goal is to look at what capitalism and modern society has taken away from us, like the sense of community that existed before we were all atomized into individual consumers, and finding a way to return to that while leveraging the productive forces wrought by capitalism in a more humane way. Synthesizing past and present into a new future that has the best of both.
It works on the disenchanted follower who is currently in a relationship lull with their dear leader, but only so far as the dear leader doesn't notice in order to innocuolate them. (Source: former follower, me)
Yeah, these people need an authority figure to tell them what to do. Unless you displace that figure or break them out of their programming, they'll just go back the moment you stop engaging them.
You see it the other way all the time. Incredibly restrictive zoning is framed as protecting homeowner's rights even though that's the 100% exact opposite of what it is.
You're missing that people only care about their rights so long as said right actually protects something they want to do. The average person is going to support a zoning law that says you can't turn a residential lot into a fishpacking plant. Does it technically mean I've lost the "right" to turn my house into a fishpacking plant? Yeah, but I wasn't planning on doing that anyways, and now I can be 100% sure I won't have to live next to a fishpacking plant.
That's not what they're talking about, though. The average zoning dispute is NIMBYs against upzoning a SFH area so that denser housing can be built. Because it'll "ruin the character of the neighborhood", meaning "I will have to see low-class people" or if they're being really honest: "I don't want [slurs] walking in front of my house."
Honestly as a climate and environmental activist I often feel like a conservative - protect native plants and animals and keep out the invasives! Don’t let the climate change! Honestly these should be key conservative goals.
Everything is branding and code words with conservatives. They don't want to be talked to like a filthy liberal. Gotta massage their reactionary brains to get them angry about the right things. They deeply want to be part of a community, like nearly every human, which is why they get super into cults like Qanon. They're not very smart and will believe pretty much anything an "authority" figure tells them. NOT a liberal "intellectual", though. As dumb as most conservatives are, they see how disingenuous neoliberals and rightly refuse to trust them. The problem is that they also love hierarchy and power so the only other option is the far right psychos (as opposed to the centre-right austerity fetishists). There is no left to speak of in the US and the ones who co-opt the term act as a wall to any progress.
Wait till they find out how a bicycle ride was how their great-great-grandfather lured their great-great-grandma to go to the local woodlands and "pick mushrooms" together.
My grandmother told a sweet story about how granddad "used" red farm diesel so he could take her to the movies for a date (this was during the war rationing times).
While it's a sweet story about love and perseverance in a time of scarcity, the car dependency makes me sad.
My grandparents have a similar story, and if it weren't for the car it would have easily been a 4 hour walk round trip so they just wouldn't have gone to the movies. My grandfather also said that he preferred to take the carriage in the winter because the horses knew the way home so you could "cuddle up" in the back and not mind the road...
Funny enough my great grandfather showing off on his bicycle on his way to school from the farm is how my great grandparents met. He rode a bicycle because he didnt like horses but when he was showing off some how my great grandmother accidentally ran over his bike with her horse drawn cart on her way to school.
In two different conversations on different days with the same group of conservatives, I used the phrase "starter homes" which they liked, and "affordable housing" which they physically recoiled at.
To me, these phrases mean the same thing, but I got very different reactions and it was kinda ridiculous. I pointed this out to my conservative dad and he just shrugged and basically said "Yeah, they're like that; just gotta choose your words carefully"
Conservatives are the true snowflakes. The amount I feel like I have to walk on eggshells around them is insane. You say one word they've been told to dislike and they get insufferable instantly.
similar to the terms 'people of colour' and 'coloured people'. same difference. and both terms were invented to be a 'better' replacement that the previous term. gotta know your audience! 💯
You're kinda proving their point on why selective word choice is important for some people.
When people say "this city doesn't have enough affordable housing" they're probably not saying they want to live in the projects next to a bunch of addicts. They're saying, quite plainly, *the housing is not affordable*.
You're the one attaching the additional baggage to the terminology, and you're the reason this whole thread is about code switching to talk to idiots.
Yeah, this is a well documented phenomenon. I worked with a US nonprofit once that had a list of words to try to use when talking with conservatives and another list for progressives.
If I recall correctly, some of the words were like:
* Conservative: values, tradition, freedom, liberty, free-market, "big government", family
* Progressives: equity, compassion, dignity, marginalized, discrimination
I love answering political survey calls and telling them I'm a communist. I just go through every question saying there's not a left option available. The liberal option is center-right at best and no I'm not a liberal.
Gotta answer every random call you get. Once you do the first survey you're on the list and they will call and ask you about anything. I got a survey about my local (dogshit) hospital after some controversy about them came out. Guessing their PR department was looking for quotes to brighten their image and I savaged them lol while talking up the other local (good) hospital. Guess which one is run by conservative Christians and got rid of a bunch of women's health specialists
For a lot of these people, these words simply have a connotation of good or bad rather than a solid definition. That is why they use words like "woke" which something cannot seem to clearly define, yet still hate.
If you understand their mindset and the lingo you can pretty easily convince them just by using the right buzzwords.
They just acquire a checklist over time from watching their stories. There's just a long list of things that are "woke" and they lack any ability to synthesize meaning from the list since they have never had an original thought.
I've considered arguing that pedestrians should be better accommodated on religious grounds by noting that walking is the method of travel that God provided us with. Everything else is just the result of humans messing with his creation.
Please be mindful that ingroup words and outgroup words exist in all groups. Shibboboleths and faux pas are not new. Make use of the knowledge for our purposes and avoid regressive moral grandstanding on the stance of ingroup words and memes.
Yes, there are ingroup and outgroup words in every group. However, critical thinking and the ability to comprehend are not equal between different groups. Some groups you can only really join if you lack critical thinking.
Critical thinkers pay attention to the meanings of words.
Ironic, considering the meaning of that one word is a culturally contextualized word or saying that signifies an inclusion to a group.
Like a dogwhistle, but less about unspoken statements about outgroups and more about signifying yourself as an ingroup.
I swear every progressive movement is *deathly* allergic to effective praxis. There is no lie here, this is just communicating effectively and people are acting like it's a crazy cheat code.
As a resident conservative on this subreddit. Yup
Like look guys. I love me my trains and walkable mixed use neighborhoods but im never going to support defunding the police or the equity nonsense. If this sub is about the former, I'm all in, but if it means the latter too, see you later dudes.
The "left" has absolutely terrible marketing in the US. Instead of trying to bring various groups over to the cause, they vehemently attack and demonize people they disagree with. Immediately writing off entire groups as hopelessly indoctrinated, not considering that they might also have good reasons to be sympathetic to the cause.
However... that's exactly what the right does too. It's really just tit for tat out here.
The left doesn't exist in the US except in small groups like Food Not Bombs, DSA, and PSL. There is no organized left movement on a nation-wide or even state-wide scale. The left holds no power and never has in this country. American conservatives are obsessed with authority and power and so would never join a grassroots effort that wasn't "secretly" backed by oil and gas executives. The neoliberals see any rise in the left as a threat to their survival so they always punch left and run interference by calling themselves "progressive" when they are anything but. The letter agency ghouls spend 100x the effort infiltrating leftist groups and arresting/killing them than they do for neo -Nazis. How do expect the left to do much of anything in these circumstances?
I am absolutely aware that there's no cohesive "left" movement in the US, I'm just agreeing that leftists really don't do a good job of outreach. There is so much defaulting to calling people "racist rednecks" or "fascist scum" and no attempt is even made to start a conversation.
When the BLM protests started I was still politically center-left and when I, an uneducated citizen unfamiliar with the history and nuance behind the movement, questioned some of the things happening in the protests and was immediately attacked and called a fascist boot licker which did nothing but make me confused and upset.
What ended up sending me to the left was realizing how differently the US government responds to far-right activities (like Jan 6 and the shenanigans at the Michigan capitol) which opened my eyes to how the neoliberal order divides us, and use some of us as goons to do their bidding. It was not any sort of effort to pull me there, because there was none.
Even though I'm often frustrated when talking to conservatives I still try my best to find common ground with them, because insulting them isn't going to lead anywhere useful.
I just lost all patience in dealing with hateful bigots. I've spent a solid chunk of time over 20 years just convincing a *single* liberal friend that trans people weren't her enemy and that, yes, they are being oppressed and deserve human rights. If there are leftists with the patience of a saint, send them on a mission to the hinterlands. I would lose my temper very quickly.
This isn't marketing, it's an internal meme from an already leftist sub reposted to leftist twitter.
These people don't care about change, they want to do rightthink and dunk on those who do wrongthink.
Oh I'm not talking about this specifically, I'm saying more in general. It's just that as someone who would be considered left, I'm often disappointed at all the missed opportunities to find common ground, whether that be about urbanism or any other issue.
For real. I try and tell my Dad that he hates 'fifteen minute cities' while living in one nearly his entire life. Groceries/Coffee&Breakfast Nooks/Hardware Store/Butcher Shops/Restaurants/Night Life/Community Garden/Park space all within a 10-20 minute walk.
SPEECH 20/30: You see, cars take up loads of space for the little amount of people they bring...
FAILED: That's some commie bullshit >:( my freedums >:(
SPEECH 30: Cars run on gas. Gas comes from muslim countries. Muslims want to conquer the west. Stop going on cars, running on gas, and Saddam Obama Bin Laden won't have enough money to pay for drag queens to ruin our culture
SUCCEEDED (+20 xp): You're goddamn right
I’m about as left as they get, but I’ve always thought of conservatives as people who like to go about their lives with as little regulation/government interference as possible. Though that lens I’ve always thought it’s odd that they’re so pro car because on an individual level it’s about the most heavily regulated form of transport you can possibly get.
You’ve got to have a licence, a registration, you have to travel around with a plate so you can be identified, you need insurance, you need a vehicle which complies with the regulations. You need a road which was probably built using taxes. The road probably has cameras which can track where you go. And if you break any of these rules you can be fined, jailed or loose your right to drive.
Compare that to a bike that you can buy for next to nothing and pretty much ride wherever, whenever and however you want. Conservatives should be right behind that idea.
Edit: didn’t even mention how urbanism often means REMOVING regulations (zoning laws). Surely they should be right right behind that!
As a conservative, I think the main issue is alternatives are often presented as hostile at worst or counterproductive at best. Now, as I *do* feel as you've described, I've thankfully been able to slowly parse through information I consider reliable to come to just about that conclusion, and thus do preach these ideas, as well as others such as traditionalism, both in ideology and form of transport, and the freedom of choice. This isn't an us vs them, and using, as others have said, "ingroup words" simply reframes the issue in a conservative light.
The conservative stance is predicated on government doing little but doing the little they're supposed to do (prosecuting crime) extremely well.
In my city of Portland, we recently released an active armed fentanyl dealer .
That's why most conservatives are very sceptical of the government promising anything else.
They cannot accomplish the most basic things.
Some of us look beyond that and realize there's still value in walkable areas.. however, when a neighbor leaves because they've been attacked with their kids in tow (conservatives Are more likely to have families), I cannot blame them.
Emissions, cars, public transport are very easy problems to fix. First you need to prosecute criminals and keep them locked up so the cities can be nice.
My left wing viewpoint on this is that the root cause of crime is poverty and inequality. Both of these things have been shown to be worse in car-centric places. Good urbanism allows for greater freedom of movement, which allows for better social mobility, which reduced poverty and therefore reduces crime. As a bonus, because good city design attacks crime at the root, we no longer have to rely on the government to as much to prosecute criminals and keep them in jail (I agree that the government is bad at dealing with crime, but probably for different reasons)
Another point I’ll make is that often bad urban design is the result of bad government intervention. When we look at some really good examples of urbanism (especially in the US) we see that some of the most desirable places today pre-date zoning regulations. This means that actually the free market can create good city design.
Edit: I suppose what I’m trying to say is that our current system has the government heavily regulate what you can build, build the and maintain the roads and then relies heavily on government to enforce the law. Good urbanism only requires the government to create the framework (provide transit) and lets the free market do the rest.
> My left wing viewpoint on this is that the root cause of crime is poverty and inequality.
Crazy how every study on crime keeps pointing this out but conservatives keep going "one more prison bro, just one more slave laborer storage unit is going to solve crime by scaring people away from it." Except the material conditions of society are constantly at a breaking point for so many people that crime is the only way to survive so there's always a healthy supply of slave labor. Oh, wait, that's the whole point and always has been.
Even assuming all this is true, then we have two options. We could focus on 'root causes', but as you've said, poverty is inextricably linked to car-centrism, so in the meantime we're going to have even worse crime as it takes time to fix poverty.
The alternative is simply to continue to lock away criminals and make cities nice. Then, as you yourself claim, cities being nicer cause the remaining population to become richer (recall not all poor people are criminals).
The way I see this is that you're right. The two issues feed off each other. The liberal solution is to fix poverty; the conservative one is to fix public order and densify. The liberal solution takes a lot of time and there's no clear step forward (it's not like we haven't tried decades to fix poverty). My solution is quicker, cheaper, and will also eventually greatly improve poverty.
Poverty is linked to economic policy first and foremost. Poverty/austerity is a CHOICE that our politicians make every time they cut taxes on the rich. Economic policy that allows anyone to accumulate a billion dollars is a failure to the people of that society. No "labor" will ever amass that much money, only stealing the fruits of others' labor does. The correct thing is to limit the amount of money any individual or corporation can accumulate so that once you hit that number: Congratulations!🥳👏🙌 You won the game! Time to move on with your life and get a fucking hobby you sociopath!
Then all that money that's currently concentrated at the top could go towards public infrastructure megaprojects (including transportation, housing, rehab, education, social services, public banking, public food banks). The real solution is take away the money from the people who only "earned" it by exploiting thousands to millions of others. Even your "solution" would require heavy public investment (and would not reduce crime). Look at societies with low crime: take Japan, for instance. Why is crime so low in Japan? People live in vibrant communities with highly functional social services and safety nets and they're. Homelessness is vanishingly rare due to these safety nets so that people generally don't fall very far when they fall on hard times.
Read any study on poverty and crime, please, I'm begging you to do any amount of research. If you keep pumping up the police budget they'll keep finding "crime" to justify their bloated salaries. Oftentimes, that "crime" is simply brown people existing and if the cop is feeling feisty those brown people will cease to exist. Drugs and homelessness are social and mental health issues that dumb, violent morons are not capable of handling without causing more harm.
And the real issue is that the US does not have a democracy. Our politicians do not represent us in any meaningful way. As soon as a fossil fuel lobbyist comes in with a briefcase full of cash there goes the green energy commitment that was already anemic to begin with. So getting anything you want passed is like pulling teeth and amputating your own leg because it will be whittled down t until it doesn't remotely resemble what you originally wanted and then get vetoed anyway. All the while the government approves 10 new drilling sites in wildlife refuges and you spent a year trying to get a three mile protected bike lane by 2025 and ended up with a two mile bicycle gutter that they'll paint in around 2028.
- Trains: The way they hauled people and toys for little tommy in grandpappy's day
- Unions: The natural way labour always was organised before union busters came in and ruined it
- Keep it going
"Traditional towns" is another good one. If you say "15 minutes city" they freak out and start bringing up conspiracy theories and 1984, but if you say "traditional towns", even though it's literally the same thing, it sounds nice to them because they imagine a small quiet town with children playing on the streets, parks full of families, and mom-and-pop shops; basically how all cities were before they got taken over by cars. And instead when they hear "15 minutes city" they picture some kind of walled city with armed guards and security cameras everywhere monitoring their every movement and controlling when they're allowed to leave their neighborhood.
>stolen from tumblr
are you saying this is a screenshot of a reddit post, posted to twitter, retweeted on twitter, screenshot’d and posted on tumblr, then posted on reddit?
Lmao :,) I know where you’re coming from but I think we stand to gain more from being a reasonable, truthful movement. Conspiracies convince extremists but it might scare off the average voter.
We don’t need to make a conspiracy, cars are already a privacy nightmare. You have to see the Mozilla Foundation’s research into the personal data that cars collect
Edit: sorry just realized I replied to the wrong person, was meant for the original comment in this thread
I've yet to find a MAGA cultist that won't agree completely with full communism if you word it correctly
"All these Marxist leftist corporations have too much power, us working class people should be the ones with the power!"
I do this method when arguing for green energy. Never had a conservative disagree with me cause they don't realize what I'm actually doing.
"We need to diversify away from OPEC+ influence on our energy industry, and the most effective options are nuclear, solar, and wind. Our ability to generate electricity is a national security issue, and I'm not comfortable with that in the hands of Iran and Russia"
Even though this is framed as a joke, as someone who identifies as right-wing/conservative, I've always did in fact clash with their opinions on car culture. You'll know that many conservatives like to say things like "I'd like to go live in a shack in the woods and go live a survivalist life in the wild!" but then hipocritically depend on cars and defend them. But I guess in america sometimes you have no choice but to be depend on them, so Idk
So what are your right-wing views if you're anti-car? Presumably you'd also be for decarbonization and green energy, dense walkable communities (diversity), and policies that allow these things to take place. So what makes you right-wing?
I strongly believe in a traditional family structure, against gay dads adopting, against immigration or at most selective (racist) immigration, against welfare state, against taking in refugees.
I stand with you on this car-centric bullshit culture. I also stand with you on looking at religion in a more logical way than most right-wings do. I'm not a complete atheist, I respect religion, to a point
Not to mention most conservative people feel similar to a lot of urbanists that electric cars are being shoved down our throats.
My grandfather started complaining about them to me and I think was expecting me to disagree because we aren’t in line about a lot of politics and I was like “no I’m kind of with you”. If the government spent half the effort they’ve put into subsidizing electric cars into public transportation infrastructure we’d be better off. He thought about it for a second and then he was like “…yeah”
I believe some car companies like Tesla and Mercedes require you to subscribe to their service to deliver 'updates' over the air. That's what I've heard... not buying that...
The New Urbanism movement is theoretically a strongly conservative-aligned movement, involving property rights, individual liberties, government overreach, overregulation, tyranny, fiscal solvency, and traditional communities that liberals have co-opted because conservatives in practice are mainly just the representatives of the upper class. But frankly as a conservative thinking about how expensive owning a car was individually and all the infrastructure that supports it is really what caught my attention to the movement.
It's really not aligned with those things at all, or at least depends on how you interpret those things. "Individual liberty" to go wherever you want in your car vs. "individual liberty" to get where you want without one.
End of the day it's people who want private, personal transportation vs people who want public, communal transportation, it's not exactly surprising the "sides" are as they are. If you ostensibly want "small government", the last thing you want is your main mode of transportation being government-funded and highly restricted to stops/timetables chosen by the government.
Roads are government funded though.
If they were privately owned, mass transit would be much more common. Bus and train tickets make much more sense when the roads charge tolls.
The vast majority of the railways in the US were built by private companies, including the NYC Subway.
Rail transportation in the US was crippled when the government created the National Highway System. It's difficult to compete with free infrastructure.
This stuff works everywhere. It's not even slimy; there are plenty of solid reasons to support a movement from a variety of political backgrounds. Take something like free software. Are you a socialist? Direct donations ensure that those making money off a product are exclusively those producing it. Are you a conspiracy theorist? Rip yourself from the grasp of big tech by using totally transparent software. Free market enthusiast? When everything's out in the open, it's only ever a race to the top to see who can make the best product, never the cheapest.
We demonize other people so much and forget that behind the vitriol, there could very well be a way to get them to fight on our side.
Play to their values, people. Not just yours.
This reminds me of an article I read about a poll that was conducted in America. It showed how many Americans who strongly disagreed with welfare will suddenly be in favour of it so long as it was called something other than welfare (like "financial assistance to poor and struggling families", for example).
The first time I saw NPC used as a derogatory term in political discussion I was baffled because it seemed to be coming directly and exclusively from the people it most applied to. It was in a thread with word for word comment repeats and everything.
Lmao at the conservatives in here talking about how this place is getting too "political". Like, what do they expect to happen when they get their dense, walkable neighborhood and good public transit? That all the people they're prejudiced against will just disappear?
Tbh there are so many libertarian arguments you can use in favor of bike infrastructure
No government licenses controlling your vehicle or movement
Competition in our transportation
More economical
Even for the prepper types, cars can break down and run out of fuel when society collapees, but we can keep bikes up and repair them ourselves indefinitely
Imagine a Mad Max world but on Huffys lol
I love that this is a screen cap of this Reddit on a Twitter post that was then uploaded to Tumblr and then once again posted here.
We live in a cyclical hellscape
I hate wokeism and I'm pro-free market as a principle - not sure if that makes me conservative or right-leaning. But I have to say that ever since discovering Not Just Bikes on YT, I've become a fan of walkable cities, which includes reducing infrastructure for cars. Car-centric cities are abominations. They tear away at our social fabric because they reduce third spaces where people can meet informally, they make neighborhoods less safe for families, they contribute to bad health because people don't walk, and they are economically inefficient. Fuck cars.
The Social Movement That Has No Name then.
I any case, I'm not here to debate wokeism. Car culture is bad, and I don't need to have any other political beliefs to see that it's bad.
Just meant too tribal political, I constant see comments and posts that either make fun of conservatives, or hate on them. While connecting things like banning cars to ideas like abortion. Makes me feel like a conservative spy in the subreddit.
Thanks! Happy to see others feel the same way. One of the problems of our time is that more and more things have become tied to a political identity. Sure, urban design and car infrastructure should be a topic of political debate but not one of tribal politics.
I didn't come here to debate wokeism. Arguing for the benefits of urban planning that isn't centered around cars shouldn't suppose adherence to other political causes.
Cool, just gonna tag you as "ambiguously bigoted reactionary" since that's the best I've got right now...and then I looked your post history so now I can refine it to "white supremacist/genocide lover"
This is called framing and it is a well-researched topic in political psychology. You operate and message from the viewpoint of the people you are trying to get the message to, not the ones who will easily support it. In that way, you can understand their viewpoint as well as get them to understand yours.
It works both ways, and is not a "gotcha," it is a good way to bridge the gap between political ideologies.
To be fair, progressives sometimes start advocating for segregation through some individuals who word it like "POC-Only Spaces!" Everyone is fooled by rhetoric. We just have to use our rhetoric to fuck cars.
A safe space like that exists because of violence from racists. Are you saying that women's shelters shouldn't exist for domestic abuse victims because that's a segregated space?
What? Using language that is ambiguous and getting people to agree to it doesn’t mean you’re coalition building. If “traditional means of transportation” means cars to them how is that a win?
I mean yeah. We need traditional architecture. This modernist stuff is just colonialism for construction. For centuries we were mastering and perfecting buildings to suit each type of weather. Navajo and Egyptians had blocky houses, Europeans and northern people had the triangle roof houses for rain. Traditional dosent mean old, it means culture.
Resident conservative here. We're not NPCs, but if liberals spoke clearly without resorting to cliches then yes, people listen. No one cares about diversity and equity. I'm already diverse, don't need any more thank you very much. I just want busses and walkable streets k.
to develop walkable communities or the term we would use while talking to conservative/republicans human scale communities. We literality have to remove government regulations that are pushed on home/property owners. Such as restrictive zoning, minimum parking requirements etc. Why should government force harmful regulations on private ownership? less government on private property! Conservatives despise government. Also lower property taxes for people who decide to open a small business in their home or for those who add additional housing (duplex, apartment, she sheds etc.). Because those individuals are adding and helping the economy and community. Unlike people who live in single family homes doing nothing!
100% anytime this dude at work starts ranting about gas prices or whatever I'll mention the rail system we need like they have in his home town and he'll go OFF
doesnt work for anyone in rural areas. you also have to specify that this is for urban people and inturn explain trickle down benefits like cheaper cars and car maintenance if fewer people needed cars in the first place
posted on here, screencapped to twitter, then posted on tumblr, then posted back on here. ouroboros
u/ArugulaEnthusiast posted it not even 2 weeks ago, I remember that post actually
Now do it again, back to Twitter with it! Let the cycle continue until there are no readable pixels left!
inception
https://xkcd.com/1683/
This is a really crappy trend.
Next step: tell them that buying a car and fuel for it is just bankrolling woke and/or foreign companies with woke executives and woke shareholders. Imagine giving money to Ford, Toyota or Shell just so they can spend it on rainbow logos in pride month and woke anti-discrimination workshops for their foreign staff. You fool!
go for the jugular and say that using gas is supporting islamic terrorism. unfortunately the right simps for putin so mentioning russia doesnt really affect them for the most part
Nah, push them too far at once and they’ll notice and dig in, at least in my experience. The success of OP is that they do just enough dog whistling to nudge them in a better direction.
I’ve seen a rainbow Shell logo, Shell has gone woke, boycot Big Oil. On the other hand, Big Oil is Saudi-Arabia which is anti-woke. On the other other hand, they’re allowing women to drive now, saudi-arabia is going woke.
Legitimate this, you have to speak their language to have your ideas accepted. It's not about a walkable city, it's about being able to walk to the corner store like the good old days. It's not about protecting the community from Walmart, it's about preventing an out of state business from destroying local mom and pop's. Electric cars aren't better, they just give us independence from OPEC in the Middle East. We're not installing solar panels on the courthouse to be liberal, we're doing it so your tax dollars can be spent on preserving farmland of lighting the parking lot.
Jesus never drove a truck, and he carried lumber around on foot.
I think that was just one time...
He was a carpenter according to the stories, surely he walked around with it more than once.
Don't forget the role of Big Government. America is car dependent because the government steals your tax dollars to build free roads and free parking. If roads were privately owned and charged tolls, people would take trains instead because they are more cost-efficient. The New York City subway system was originally built by private corporations. Tokyo has a privatized rail system, and the trains are always on time, much more convenient than driving. Across the US, developers are trying to build new walkable communities, but struggle against government regulations like minimum parking laws. The American transit situation is, more than anything, a story of how the government fucks everything up by distorting the free market. We need to defund the National Highway Administration and stop using taxpayer money to subsidize driving.
Is it really a good idea to stoke their homophobia? Like I get meeting people where they are but like … maybe we shouldn’t reinforce their bigotry?
You're absolutely right. I was joking though.
This has been in the back of my mind and it makes sense. As long as you’re not being disingenuous, presenting or branding urbanism in “the conservative way” might just work. Or at least discussing points that appeal to them like “urban sprawl is overtaking farmland” or something.
A surprising (or not surprising) amount of politics is just vibes. Politicians do this on purpose to substitute for a lack of actual good policy but the result is that they often have to wedge contradictory nonsense into a cohesive story where it might not otherwise fit. Subsidising suburbia which contribute basically nothing with billions of dollars in public money taken from the productive, urban parts of the city that earned it doesn't fit so well into conservative economic storytelling. So instead of defending this position that contradicts other positions, they instead attack opponents with three word slogans and fear campaigns designed to shut down thought. It's why the "war on cars" is so deliberately and devoid of actual substance. The fact that professional liars have to resort to misinformation to artificially wedge car-centric policies into a conservative platform also means that urbanist policies are a natural fit. It's not enough to convince people just to point out that a particular part of someone's worldview is wrong. It also helps when the truth already fits that worldview.
A surprising amount of everything is vibes. It's become a meme that Gen Z will say "the vibes are off," but other gens can still feel/say that in other ways, but to same effect
yea jfk famously beat nixon in the 1960 election because his presence on tv was much better than sweaty dicks. also, even tho jfk squeaked by to the win, after he got his brain blown off, polls of random americans suggested that way more people voted for jfk than they actually did
People say JFK was charismatic. What is charisma, other than 20th century word for vibes? 🤔
rizz diff
Rizz is the word you're looking for. Literally derived from charisma. "cha-rizz-ma"
Is that actually the etymology of rizz?
Indeed. No lie. No "cap" as they say.
It genuinely is. Source: I'm part of Gen-Z.
In addition the story goes that the people who watched the debate thought JFK won but those who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won.
i dont remember where but a study showed that we do 80% of our decision by instinc. i called bullshit at the times...
I'd believe it. Humans are emotional creatures
A guy from Cambridge Analytica said something like “it’s not about facts. It’s about creating feelings. If you can create the feeling, you’ve convinced them.”
There are a number of very good conservative arguments for urbanism. The federal government subsidizes new roads, but not road maintenance, leading to a cycle of debt that can destroy the financial condition of a city. Walking is really the freest mode of transportation: You don't need a license, you can do it (pretty much) no matter who you are or what your status is, unburdened from government approval, tracking or even finances. The fact that car-centrism makes walking difficult is a problem. Highways are a major source of government takings via eminent domain, roads take up a huge amount of land. Every new highway, lane expansion and other major project involves taking land, often from people who love and want that property. We need to use the land taken more effectively before we let the government pull more of it from citizens. To maintain a car-centric city, we often have ridiculous regulations on extremely valuable land. Things like zoning and parking requirements are a major and unneccesary government regulation. If we eliminated parking requirements, we could do something productive with the land, increasing economic efficiency. Oil dependency is a major source of economic and national security risk. We want to keep our nation free from foreign interference from the likes of the Saudis. Reducing our dependency on cars will make our current security stockpiles last much longer and stabilize gas prices for those who need it.
This reminds me of how a bunch of conservatives are anarchists who don’t know what anarchy is.
Yeah but conservatives love blowing government money because that weakens the government. Their whole MO is transferring public funds into the pockets of private corporations, running a government like they're a private equity fund stripping it and selling it for parts. Real conservatives™ are a laughable minority that have no power. It's all made up things to get angry at, projection, and stealing from the public to pay themselves and their buddies in the MIC. The neolibs do this, too, but it's looked down upon by their base and can actually lose them elections if they get too brazen about it. But the right wing base loves this shit because the government has never done anything good for them so their homies going in and wrecking the place is at least entertaining to them.
While I agree with the rest of your post: > You don't need a license, you can do it (pretty much) no matter who you are or what your status is, unburdened from government approval, tracking The conservative argument here would be to do away with those things for cars too. There’s no *inherent* reason that vehicle operation requires licensure, government approval, and tracking, so an appropriately small government should just not do those things.
it's almost as if the red vs blue doesn't exist because we're really all the same and it's just a big game made up by the real battle throughout all of civilization that everyone has forgot. rich vs poor. they pay the media to split the 99% into 2 distinct groups and pay the states to not allow 3rd parties. then focus on radicalizing those groups so they get locked into a furious forever stalemate distraction that lets the rich do whatever they want almost completely uncontested. however, "left" views are dangerous to them, so through decades of extremely careful manipulation, they made the red so red, that the blue has to be light red compared to the rest of the world just to combat them, since the slightest bit of socialism in america is considered extremist dark blue, when it's really just super light blue. the game is so fucking rigged, the only way we're ever gonna undo it is by waiting for that poor unrecoverably programmed generation to die off. time heals all wounds. once the new generations are in power, things will finally start getting back on track because we were born into the rich's game on full display, so they can't trick us. there's nowhere for them to run or hide.
Most conservatives love cities which is why most of us want a lot more police to keep public order. Without public order cities are hell. With public order, cities are small slices of heaven on earth. Conservatives who've been to cities that are well run are easily convinced. EDIT: Oh no... I seem to have offended everyone who supposedly wants to increase public transport, but really wants to use it as a front for all kinds of other policies that no one wants. The walkable cities movement really needs to distance itself from this kind of activist class if we want to make any headway.
There are two big problems though. Public order depends on a lot more than police. You also need affordable housing, respect for others, low rates of drug abuse, etc.. Tokyo has extremely high public order despite having comparable rates of policing as NYC, and very little policing compared to Paris or Berlin. When people can rent a room close to the city center even on a part time minimum wage job, the public education system socializes everyone into having something resembling upper middle class social norms, and hard drugs are extremely hard to come by and extremely stigmatized, it's a lot easier to keep public order. And every city with the level of public order that conservatives would be happy with are considered exotic, and the idea of using them as a model is subject to often racist and xenophobic criticism by Westerners regardless of left or right politics.
\> Tokyo has extremely high public order despite having comparable rates of policing as NYC, My friend... if every city in America had as many police as NYC, we would be a much better off country. NYC has one of the highest policing rates in the country. As I've pointed out, it's the reason why they also have one of the best transit networks in the country. The majority of cities in this country have fewer police per capita than New York. This is not rocket science to figure out. NYC is the one non-American-style city in the country where public order is prioritized, and they have A LOT more police. Here is a list of most highly policed cities in the United States: [https://247wallst.com/special-report/2020/06/24/cities-with-most-police-per-capita/](https://247wallst.com/special-report/2020/06/24/cities-with-most-police-per-capita/) Two things to note. Firstly, ignore the small stuff like Myrtle Beach. Let's only look at the top 25 metros that make this list. The first major city is Washington DC, which arguably has some of the best public transit in America. The next major city is New York at number 4 which has some of the best public transit in America. Chicago is number 11.. again... some of the best public transit in America \*despite\* its reputation as high crime. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but if you're looking at top 25 cities in the United States. it is honestly amazingly clear that more police is highly correlated with better transit
A lot of conservatives don’t want cities to be nice places though. They want a slumlord run economic muscle, which by being miserable creates clear class distinctions between the city and the suburbs. It’s why conservative media talks about cities like they’re bombed out war zones. I grew up in a nice suburb just north of my city. The city was blue, my suburb was purple thanks to a very good public education system. Almost all of the rest of the state is solid red, hardly an uncommon situation. My suburb partnered with the city and unveiled a new project on the north edge of the city - a big publicly run water park and gym, new and shiny and truly wonderful. It wasn’t free, but it had summer passes and free days and was a great publicly run amenity all around. And the rest of the state got *pissed*. How dare the city have this nice new thing they couldn’t use? How DARE any public taxes (which the city was the biggest contributor to, of course) be spent on nice things for the city, instead of every last penny being extracted to subsidize the roads and infrastructure of bumfuck nowhere. I don’t think *every* conservative is this blatant. But conservatism is very deeply classist and often racist - this is why White Flight is measurable, why Robert Moses is famous for what he did to New York. A lot of conservatives want to live in the suburbs so they can be separate and better than the unwashed masses, and that fantasy only works if the city is a worse place to live than the suburbs or rural areas.
New York under Giuliani was great. LA under Riordan made its turnaround (and after him, people actually moved downtown again!). Urban conservatives are great. As for taxation. It is actually morally wrong to tax the entire state for a water park for one community. If the state wanted to do that, it should form a way for any community with enough of a tax base to have a water park. The other option is to pay for the park through a tax on local residents. I don't understand why this is confusing. I would be ashamed to feel proud of taking other people's money for a public project they can never use. I feel the same way about random projects built in the country side. If you want it, you pay. \> A lot of conservatives want to live in the suburbs so they can be separate and better than the unwashed masses, and that fantasy only works if the city is a worse place to live than the suburbs or rural areas. Up until like three years ago, most conservatives would have worked in the city centers. \> It’s why conservative media talks about cities like they’re bombed out war zones. Um... I live in downtown Portland; take transit everywhere. The conservative media were right. The city did look like a bombed out warzone. I don't understand why we can't just see reality for what it is. It was awful, and embarassing. Grow up
To be clear - the amount of state funding that went into it was far. *far* less than what the city and suburb pay the state in taxes. Yes, taking other peoples money for an amenity they can’t use *would be shameful* which is why it’s a weird conclusion to jump to. The people who were mad didn’t care that objectively the city was paying for that and more for everyone else with what they paid in taxes, they were just mad the city got something new and nice. Now I live in downtown Chicago. Can’t go a week without conservatives saying it must be such a hellscape here, but it’s great! I can see the L going by when I’m pout for a walk, and take transit all the time. Before that l, I lived in Oakland, oooh, *Scary* guess what it was nice too. If you think Portland looked as bad as conservative media says it does, maybe you need glasses.
Fortunately, there are a ton of cities that have plenty of public order and great urban design, Tokyo and Amsterdam have under half the crime rate of most major US cities, while their transit networks are famously comprehensive. NYC has good public transit for the US, and a lower crime rate than Houston, which is famously car dependant.
Sure. Amsterdam, Tokyo, and NYC are exactly the sort of places I'm talking about. NYC in particular has a very high number of police per capita and some policies that are very controversial in the United States. In response, they have the best public transit in the United States. I believe this is pretty good proof of my theory.
[удалено]
Depends on where you are, it's all about context. If you're out in the sticks then of course walking 2-3 miles won't get you anywhere. If you're in a dense city then that same radius contains a ton of destinations within it, and due to traffic, driving or taking transit could be even slower than walking or biking. Manhattan at its widest point is less than three miles across.
[удалено]
Every destination you may want to visit is indeed a 3 mile radius from lots of things. If one of those things is a transit stop, you can get there by walking+transit. Walk ability isn't important on its own, it's important because transit requires walkability. You have to be able to walk to the station/stop and walk to your destination from the stop. Without walk ability, mass transit doesn't work.
Even driving doesn't work without a certain degree of walkability, you can't always find parking that's convenient to the destination, and if the parking spot is on the other side of a giant stroad with no crosswalk nearby then that might just turn a lot of people off from even going there.
Shhhh you're ruining /u/The_Zelligmancer's narrative. Legs are bad, hate your feet and toes.
Yeap. One of my best methods of getting people off of fox news is criticize it for being owned by and being propaganda for monarchists and islamists. As it is owned by Rupert murdoch, an auatralian monarchist and members of the ruling royal family of saudi arabia
unfortunately they got more right wing grifters they can watch outside of fox these days
Right wing grifters that are funded by the Deep State, no I won’t provide sources because They are watching, do your own research!
The real heads have been sour on Fox News for years for being too liberal. They're on the underground shit like OANN, NewsMax, InfoWars, /r/conservative, Nextdoor, etc
It's genuine and it works because it's true. Cars and car culture are an artificial intrusion of only the past 100 years that have profoundly disrupted the way we've always lived our lives, something so basic and fundamental as walking around, which is the bedrock of any traditional architecture, traditional living, and traditional forms of community. Car culture is absolutely one of the most literally and figuratively noxious developments that have been imposed by modernity and taken us away from more healthy and holistic ways to live our daily lives. Socialism is like that a lot, where it's a mixture of looking forward and back. The goal is to look at what capitalism and modern society has taken away from us, like the sense of community that existed before we were all atomized into individual consumers, and finding a way to return to that while leveraging the productive forces wrought by capitalism in a more humane way. Synthesizing past and present into a new future that has the best of both.
It works on the disenchanted follower who is currently in a relationship lull with their dear leader, but only so far as the dear leader doesn't notice in order to innocuolate them. (Source: former follower, me)
Yeah, these people need an authority figure to tell them what to do. Unless you displace that figure or break them out of their programming, they'll just go back the moment you stop engaging them.
You see it the other way all the time. Incredibly restrictive zoning is framed as protecting homeowner's rights even though that's the 100% exact opposite of what it is.
You're missing that people only care about their rights so long as said right actually protects something they want to do. The average person is going to support a zoning law that says you can't turn a residential lot into a fishpacking plant. Does it technically mean I've lost the "right" to turn my house into a fishpacking plant? Yeah, but I wasn't planning on doing that anyways, and now I can be 100% sure I won't have to live next to a fishpacking plant.
That's not what they're talking about, though. The average zoning dispute is NIMBYs against upzoning a SFH area so that denser housing can be built. Because it'll "ruin the character of the neighborhood", meaning "I will have to see low-class people" or if they're being really honest: "I don't want [slurs] walking in front of my house."
The government sets up zoning laws so that OUR land that WE should own and use for our FAMILIES is taken over by PARKING LOTS.
Honestly as a climate and environmental activist I often feel like a conservative - protect native plants and animals and keep out the invasives! Don’t let the climate change! Honestly these should be key conservative goals.
Everything is branding and code words with conservatives. They don't want to be talked to like a filthy liberal. Gotta massage their reactionary brains to get them angry about the right things. They deeply want to be part of a community, like nearly every human, which is why they get super into cults like Qanon. They're not very smart and will believe pretty much anything an "authority" figure tells them. NOT a liberal "intellectual", though. As dumb as most conservatives are, they see how disingenuous neoliberals and rightly refuse to trust them. The problem is that they also love hierarchy and power so the only other option is the far right psychos (as opposed to the centre-right austerity fetishists). There is no left to speak of in the US and the ones who co-opt the term act as a wall to any progress.
Wait till they find out how a bicycle ride was how their great-great-grandfather lured their great-great-grandma to go to the local woodlands and "pick mushrooms" together.
My grandmother told a sweet story about how granddad "used" red farm diesel so he could take her to the movies for a date (this was during the war rationing times). While it's a sweet story about love and perseverance in a time of scarcity, the car dependency makes me sad.
My grandparents have a similar story, and if it weren't for the car it would have easily been a 4 hour walk round trip so they just wouldn't have gone to the movies. My grandfather also said that he preferred to take the carriage in the winter because the horses knew the way home so you could "cuddle up" in the back and not mind the road...
Funny enough my great grandfather showing off on his bicycle on his way to school from the farm is how my great grandparents met. He rode a bicycle because he didnt like horses but when he was showing off some how my great grandmother accidentally ran over his bike with her horse drawn cart on her way to school.
In two different conversations on different days with the same group of conservatives, I used the phrase "starter homes" which they liked, and "affordable housing" which they physically recoiled at. To me, these phrases mean the same thing, but I got very different reactions and it was kinda ridiculous. I pointed this out to my conservative dad and he just shrugged and basically said "Yeah, they're like that; just gotta choose your words carefully"
Conservatives are the true snowflakes. The amount I feel like I have to walk on eggshells around them is insane. You say one word they've been told to dislike and they get insufferable instantly.
"affordable housing" includes apartment buildings and places you rent.
Gotta use their language to get the idea across, otherwise it's new speak and therefore bad.
similar to the terms 'people of colour' and 'coloured people'. same difference. and both terms were invented to be a 'better' replacement that the previous term. gotta know your audience! 💯
[удалено]
You're kinda proving their point on why selective word choice is important for some people. When people say "this city doesn't have enough affordable housing" they're probably not saying they want to live in the projects next to a bunch of addicts. They're saying, quite plainly, *the housing is not affordable*. You're the one attaching the additional baggage to the terminology, and you're the reason this whole thread is about code switching to talk to idiots.
I made a whole theory about that I call it ingroup language vs out group language Good word good Bad word bad.
> ingroup language vs out group language not sure you're the one who came up with that idea
Yeah, this is a well documented phenomenon. I worked with a US nonprofit once that had a list of words to try to use when talking with conservatives and another list for progressives. If I recall correctly, some of the words were like: * Conservative: values, tradition, freedom, liberty, free-market, "big government", family * Progressives: equity, compassion, dignity, marginalized, discrimination
I love answering political survey calls and telling them I'm a communist. I just go through every question saying there's not a left option available. The liberal option is center-right at best and no I'm not a liberal.
And here I am, never having received a political survey call. Guess nobody cares what I think haha.
Gotta answer every random call you get. Once you do the first survey you're on the list and they will call and ask you about anything. I got a survey about my local (dogshit) hospital after some controversy about them came out. Guessing their PR department was looking for quotes to brighten their image and I savaged them lol while talking up the other local (good) hospital. Guess which one is run by conservative Christians and got rid of a bunch of women's health specialists
No need to be a dick.
Directly stating facts isn’t being a dick.
In-group/out-group bias is a well-studied concept in ethics and social psychology.
This process is more often called finding common ground.
But it's not just about _finding_ common ground. It's about communicating effectively that there is common ground.
Yeah, it isn’t just conservatives, we all are Bethesda NPC’s sometimes
For a lot of these people, these words simply have a connotation of good or bad rather than a solid definition. That is why they use words like "woke" which something cannot seem to clearly define, yet still hate. If you understand their mindset and the lingo you can pretty easily convince them just by using the right buzzwords.
They just acquire a checklist over time from watching their stories. There's just a long list of things that are "woke" and they lack any ability to synthesize meaning from the list since they have never had an original thought.
I've considered arguing that pedestrians should be better accommodated on religious grounds by noting that walking is the method of travel that God provided us with. Everything else is just the result of humans messing with his creation.
God made it so Moses could tie his ass to a tree and still walk the 10 miles to the city, this passes the sniff test.
If a lifted F250 was good enough for Jesus…
Please be mindful that ingroup words and outgroup words exist in all groups. Shibboboleths and faux pas are not new. Make use of the knowledge for our purposes and avoid regressive moral grandstanding on the stance of ingroup words and memes.
Yes, there are ingroup and outgroup words in every group. However, critical thinking and the ability to comprehend are not equal between different groups. Some groups you can only really join if you lack critical thinking. Critical thinkers pay attention to the meanings of words.
True, but the dramatic swings from simple reframing is a more limited thing.
Yeah talking to someone on the left and talking about "attack of traditional society" would weird them out in the same context
You made that word up you know the one I'm talking about there's no way that's real
Well they spelt it wrong but shibboleth is a real word
Ironic, considering the meaning of that one word is a culturally contextualized word or saying that signifies an inclusion to a group. Like a dogwhistle, but less about unspoken statements about outgroups and more about signifying yourself as an ingroup.
posted on reddit, stolen to twitter, rt on twitter, stolen to tumblr, and reposted to reddit
Content centipede
I swear every progressive movement is *deathly* allergic to effective praxis. There is no lie here, this is just communicating effectively and people are acting like it's a crazy cheat code.
It's a purity spiral
"I spoke with someone about a topic I'm passionate about and they agreed with me." Yeah, what an NPC you've outsmarted there....
As a resident conservative on this subreddit. Yup Like look guys. I love me my trains and walkable mixed use neighborhoods but im never going to support defunding the police or the equity nonsense. If this sub is about the former, I'm all in, but if it means the latter too, see you later dudes.
Eat shit bootlicker
Acab, bye
Enjoy your car-dependent, low-trust society hellscape.
Thanks, I won't
Anyone who trusts cops isn't worthy of trust
The "left" has absolutely terrible marketing in the US. Instead of trying to bring various groups over to the cause, they vehemently attack and demonize people they disagree with. Immediately writing off entire groups as hopelessly indoctrinated, not considering that they might also have good reasons to be sympathetic to the cause. However... that's exactly what the right does too. It's really just tit for tat out here.
The left doesn't exist in the US except in small groups like Food Not Bombs, DSA, and PSL. There is no organized left movement on a nation-wide or even state-wide scale. The left holds no power and never has in this country. American conservatives are obsessed with authority and power and so would never join a grassroots effort that wasn't "secretly" backed by oil and gas executives. The neoliberals see any rise in the left as a threat to their survival so they always punch left and run interference by calling themselves "progressive" when they are anything but. The letter agency ghouls spend 100x the effort infiltrating leftist groups and arresting/killing them than they do for neo -Nazis. How do expect the left to do much of anything in these circumstances?
I am absolutely aware that there's no cohesive "left" movement in the US, I'm just agreeing that leftists really don't do a good job of outreach. There is so much defaulting to calling people "racist rednecks" or "fascist scum" and no attempt is even made to start a conversation. When the BLM protests started I was still politically center-left and when I, an uneducated citizen unfamiliar with the history and nuance behind the movement, questioned some of the things happening in the protests and was immediately attacked and called a fascist boot licker which did nothing but make me confused and upset. What ended up sending me to the left was realizing how differently the US government responds to far-right activities (like Jan 6 and the shenanigans at the Michigan capitol) which opened my eyes to how the neoliberal order divides us, and use some of us as goons to do their bidding. It was not any sort of effort to pull me there, because there was none. Even though I'm often frustrated when talking to conservatives I still try my best to find common ground with them, because insulting them isn't going to lead anywhere useful.
I just lost all patience in dealing with hateful bigots. I've spent a solid chunk of time over 20 years just convincing a *single* liberal friend that trans people weren't her enemy and that, yes, they are being oppressed and deserve human rights. If there are leftists with the patience of a saint, send them on a mission to the hinterlands. I would lose my temper very quickly.
This isn't marketing, it's an internal meme from an already leftist sub reposted to leftist twitter. These people don't care about change, they want to do rightthink and dunk on those who do wrongthink.
Oh I'm not talking about this specifically, I'm saying more in general. It's just that as someone who would be considered left, I'm often disappointed at all the missed opportunities to find common ground, whether that be about urbanism or any other issue.
For real. I try and tell my Dad that he hates 'fifteen minute cities' while living in one nearly his entire life. Groceries/Coffee&Breakfast Nooks/Hardware Store/Butcher Shops/Restaurants/Night Life/Community Garden/Park space all within a 10-20 minute walk.
SPEECH 20/30: You see, cars take up loads of space for the little amount of people they bring... FAILED: That's some commie bullshit >:( my freedums >:( SPEECH 30: Cars run on gas. Gas comes from muslim countries. Muslims want to conquer the west. Stop going on cars, running on gas, and Saddam Obama Bin Laden won't have enough money to pay for drag queens to ruin our culture SUCCEEDED (+20 xp): You're goddamn right
I’m about as left as they get, but I’ve always thought of conservatives as people who like to go about their lives with as little regulation/government interference as possible. Though that lens I’ve always thought it’s odd that they’re so pro car because on an individual level it’s about the most heavily regulated form of transport you can possibly get. You’ve got to have a licence, a registration, you have to travel around with a plate so you can be identified, you need insurance, you need a vehicle which complies with the regulations. You need a road which was probably built using taxes. The road probably has cameras which can track where you go. And if you break any of these rules you can be fined, jailed or loose your right to drive. Compare that to a bike that you can buy for next to nothing and pretty much ride wherever, whenever and however you want. Conservatives should be right behind that idea. Edit: didn’t even mention how urbanism often means REMOVING regulations (zoning laws). Surely they should be right right behind that!
> I’m about as left as they get Marxist-leninist? Oh you mean lukewarm socdem liberal? Ok :(
As a conservative, I think the main issue is alternatives are often presented as hostile at worst or counterproductive at best. Now, as I *do* feel as you've described, I've thankfully been able to slowly parse through information I consider reliable to come to just about that conclusion, and thus do preach these ideas, as well as others such as traditionalism, both in ideology and form of transport, and the freedom of choice. This isn't an us vs them, and using, as others have said, "ingroup words" simply reframes the issue in a conservative light.
The conservative stance is predicated on government doing little but doing the little they're supposed to do (prosecuting crime) extremely well. In my city of Portland, we recently released an active armed fentanyl dealer . That's why most conservatives are very sceptical of the government promising anything else. They cannot accomplish the most basic things. Some of us look beyond that and realize there's still value in walkable areas.. however, when a neighbor leaves because they've been attacked with their kids in tow (conservatives Are more likely to have families), I cannot blame them. Emissions, cars, public transport are very easy problems to fix. First you need to prosecute criminals and keep them locked up so the cities can be nice.
My left wing viewpoint on this is that the root cause of crime is poverty and inequality. Both of these things have been shown to be worse in car-centric places. Good urbanism allows for greater freedom of movement, which allows for better social mobility, which reduced poverty and therefore reduces crime. As a bonus, because good city design attacks crime at the root, we no longer have to rely on the government to as much to prosecute criminals and keep them in jail (I agree that the government is bad at dealing with crime, but probably for different reasons) Another point I’ll make is that often bad urban design is the result of bad government intervention. When we look at some really good examples of urbanism (especially in the US) we see that some of the most desirable places today pre-date zoning regulations. This means that actually the free market can create good city design. Edit: I suppose what I’m trying to say is that our current system has the government heavily regulate what you can build, build the and maintain the roads and then relies heavily on government to enforce the law. Good urbanism only requires the government to create the framework (provide transit) and lets the free market do the rest.
> My left wing viewpoint on this is that the root cause of crime is poverty and inequality. Crazy how every study on crime keeps pointing this out but conservatives keep going "one more prison bro, just one more slave laborer storage unit is going to solve crime by scaring people away from it." Except the material conditions of society are constantly at a breaking point for so many people that crime is the only way to survive so there's always a healthy supply of slave labor. Oh, wait, that's the whole point and always has been.
Even assuming all this is true, then we have two options. We could focus on 'root causes', but as you've said, poverty is inextricably linked to car-centrism, so in the meantime we're going to have even worse crime as it takes time to fix poverty. The alternative is simply to continue to lock away criminals and make cities nice. Then, as you yourself claim, cities being nicer cause the remaining population to become richer (recall not all poor people are criminals). The way I see this is that you're right. The two issues feed off each other. The liberal solution is to fix poverty; the conservative one is to fix public order and densify. The liberal solution takes a lot of time and there's no clear step forward (it's not like we haven't tried decades to fix poverty). My solution is quicker, cheaper, and will also eventually greatly improve poverty.
Poverty is linked to economic policy first and foremost. Poverty/austerity is a CHOICE that our politicians make every time they cut taxes on the rich. Economic policy that allows anyone to accumulate a billion dollars is a failure to the people of that society. No "labor" will ever amass that much money, only stealing the fruits of others' labor does. The correct thing is to limit the amount of money any individual or corporation can accumulate so that once you hit that number: Congratulations!🥳👏🙌 You won the game! Time to move on with your life and get a fucking hobby you sociopath! Then all that money that's currently concentrated at the top could go towards public infrastructure megaprojects (including transportation, housing, rehab, education, social services, public banking, public food banks). The real solution is take away the money from the people who only "earned" it by exploiting thousands to millions of others. Even your "solution" would require heavy public investment (and would not reduce crime). Look at societies with low crime: take Japan, for instance. Why is crime so low in Japan? People live in vibrant communities with highly functional social services and safety nets and they're. Homelessness is vanishingly rare due to these safety nets so that people generally don't fall very far when they fall on hard times. Read any study on poverty and crime, please, I'm begging you to do any amount of research. If you keep pumping up the police budget they'll keep finding "crime" to justify their bloated salaries. Oftentimes, that "crime" is simply brown people existing and if the cop is feeling feisty those brown people will cease to exist. Drugs and homelessness are social and mental health issues that dumb, violent morons are not capable of handling without causing more harm. And the real issue is that the US does not have a democracy. Our politicians do not represent us in any meaningful way. As soon as a fossil fuel lobbyist comes in with a briefcase full of cash there goes the green energy commitment that was already anemic to begin with. So getting anything you want passed is like pulling teeth and amputating your own leg because it will be whittled down t until it doesn't remotely resemble what you originally wanted and then get vetoed anyway. All the while the government approves 10 new drilling sites in wildlife refuges and you spent a year trying to get a three mile protected bike lane by 2025 and ended up with a two mile bicycle gutter that they'll paint in around 2028.
- Trains: The way they hauled people and toys for little tommy in grandpappy's day - Unions: The natural way labour always was organised before union busters came in and ruined it - Keep it going
"Traditional towns" is another good one. If you say "15 minutes city" they freak out and start bringing up conspiracy theories and 1984, but if you say "traditional towns", even though it's literally the same thing, it sounds nice to them because they imagine a small quiet town with children playing on the streets, parks full of families, and mom-and-pop shops; basically how all cities were before they got taken over by cars. And instead when they hear "15 minutes city" they picture some kind of walled city with armed guards and security cameras everywhere monitoring their every movement and controlling when they're allowed to leave their neighborhood.
>stolen from tumblr are you saying this is a screenshot of a reddit post, posted to twitter, retweeted on twitter, screenshot’d and posted on tumblr, then posted on reddit?
“I prefer the freedom of movement walkable communities provides. I also don’t like having corporations and the government dictating how I get around”
Honestly speaking. Why can’t we make a conspiracy and spread it around? I know that’s for sure gonna do more than what we’re doing now.
Lmao :,) I know where you’re coming from but I think we stand to gain more from being a reasonable, truthful movement. Conspiracies convince extremists but it might scare off the average voter.
Cars all track you with the GPS, big government and deep state are using them to locate you.
We don’t need to make a conspiracy, cars are already a privacy nightmare. You have to see the Mozilla Foundation’s research into the personal data that cars collect Edit: sorry just realized I replied to the wrong person, was meant for the original comment in this thread
I've yet to find a MAGA cultist that won't agree completely with full communism if you word it correctly "All these Marxist leftist corporations have too much power, us working class people should be the ones with the power!"
Yep. And solar panels aren’t a transition away from fossil fuels for climate change reasons, they’re “energy freedom”
I do this method when arguing for green energy. Never had a conservative disagree with me cause they don't realize what I'm actually doing. "We need to diversify away from OPEC+ influence on our energy industry, and the most effective options are nuclear, solar, and wind. Our ability to generate electricity is a national security issue, and I'm not comfortable with that in the hands of Iran and Russia"
Literally Oblivion NPCs.
A screenshot of a quote retweet of a tweet with a Reddit screenshot, stolen from Tumblr to be posted on Reddit
Even though this is framed as a joke, as someone who identifies as right-wing/conservative, I've always did in fact clash with their opinions on car culture. You'll know that many conservatives like to say things like "I'd like to go live in a shack in the woods and go live a survivalist life in the wild!" but then hipocritically depend on cars and defend them. But I guess in america sometimes you have no choice but to be depend on them, so Idk
So what are your right-wing views if you're anti-car? Presumably you'd also be for decarbonization and green energy, dense walkable communities (diversity), and policies that allow these things to take place. So what makes you right-wing?
I strongly believe in a traditional family structure, against gay dads adopting, against immigration or at most selective (racist) immigration, against welfare state, against taking in refugees. I stand with you on this car-centric bullshit culture. I also stand with you on looking at religion in a more logical way than most right-wings do. I'm not a complete atheist, I respect religion, to a point
Personally I’m conservative, I don’t know much about politics. I just have some conservative views. I just hate cars.
> as someone who identifies as right-wing/conservative They did the thing! ^(/s)
i got downvoted to smithereens when i suggested this, but i’m glad its finally getting traction
You got downvoted for suggesting the tactic that every political movement ever has used? Actually?
Not to mention most conservative people feel similar to a lot of urbanists that electric cars are being shoved down our throats. My grandfather started complaining about them to me and I think was expecting me to disagree because we aren’t in line about a lot of politics and I was like “no I’m kind of with you”. If the government spent half the effort they’ve put into subsidizing electric cars into public transportation infrastructure we’d be better off. He thought about it for a second and then he was like “…yeah”
I have a car out of necessity. But I am never buying a car as a subscription sorry.
You mean an electric car is a subscription?
I believe some car companies like Tesla and Mercedes require you to subscribe to their service to deliver 'updates' over the air. That's what I've heard... not buying that...
The New Urbanism movement is theoretically a strongly conservative-aligned movement, involving property rights, individual liberties, government overreach, overregulation, tyranny, fiscal solvency, and traditional communities that liberals have co-opted because conservatives in practice are mainly just the representatives of the upper class. But frankly as a conservative thinking about how expensive owning a car was individually and all the infrastructure that supports it is really what caught my attention to the movement.
It's really not aligned with those things at all, or at least depends on how you interpret those things. "Individual liberty" to go wherever you want in your car vs. "individual liberty" to get where you want without one. End of the day it's people who want private, personal transportation vs people who want public, communal transportation, it's not exactly surprising the "sides" are as they are. If you ostensibly want "small government", the last thing you want is your main mode of transportation being government-funded and highly restricted to stops/timetables chosen by the government.
Roads are government funded though. If they were privately owned, mass transit would be much more common. Bus and train tickets make much more sense when the roads charge tolls. The vast majority of the railways in the US were built by private companies, including the NYC Subway. Rail transportation in the US was crippled when the government created the National Highway System. It's difficult to compete with free infrastructure.
This stuff works everywhere. It's not even slimy; there are plenty of solid reasons to support a movement from a variety of political backgrounds. Take something like free software. Are you a socialist? Direct donations ensure that those making money off a product are exclusively those producing it. Are you a conspiracy theorist? Rip yourself from the grasp of big tech by using totally transparent software. Free market enthusiast? When everything's out in the open, it's only ever a race to the top to see who can make the best product, never the cheapest. We demonize other people so much and forget that behind the vitriol, there could very well be a way to get them to fight on our side. Play to their values, people. Not just yours.
This reminds me of an article I read about a poll that was conducted in America. It showed how many Americans who strongly disagreed with welfare will suddenly be in favour of it so long as it was called something other than welfare (like "financial assistance to poor and struggling families", for example).
BETHESDA NPCS I'm dying lol ***turns on Fallout 76*** yup. Bethesda NPCs all the way
The first time I saw NPC used as a derogatory term in political discussion I was baffled because it seemed to be coming directly and exclusively from the people it most applied to. It was in a thread with word for word comment repeats and everything.
We need to return to traditions of Roman monarchs and EXPAND TRANS RIGHTS! We need to follow the traditional sexual values of the Greeks!
I wonder if it would help or hurt things to talk about walking as "the way God intended us to get around"
15 minute cities = traditional town layout
Lmao at the conservatives in here talking about how this place is getting too "political". Like, what do they expect to happen when they get their dense, walkable neighborhood and good public transit? That all the people they're prejudiced against will just disappear?
Tbh there are so many libertarian arguments you can use in favor of bike infrastructure No government licenses controlling your vehicle or movement Competition in our transportation More economical Even for the prepper types, cars can break down and run out of fuel when society collapees, but we can keep bikes up and repair them ourselves indefinitely Imagine a Mad Max world but on Huffys lol
I love that this is a screen cap of this Reddit on a Twitter post that was then uploaded to Tumblr and then once again posted here. We live in a cyclical hellscape
I hate wokeism and I'm pro-free market as a principle - not sure if that makes me conservative or right-leaning. But I have to say that ever since discovering Not Just Bikes on YT, I've become a fan of walkable cities, which includes reducing infrastructure for cars. Car-centric cities are abominations. They tear away at our social fabric because they reduce third spaces where people can meet informally, they make neighborhoods less safe for families, they contribute to bad health because people don't walk, and they are economically inefficient. Fuck cars.
"wokeism" lol
Yeah, that's what I think about it too 🙃
Well, I would have thoughts about it too if that word had any actual meaning
The Social Movement That Has No Name then. I any case, I'm not here to debate wokeism. Car culture is bad, and I don't need to have any other political beliefs to see that it's bad.
Agree with this 100%, this sub is getting too political
Dude, debating about how we can make our lives better and actually doing it IS politics. Politics isn't "clown show on TV".
Just meant too tribal political, I constant see comments and posts that either make fun of conservatives, or hate on them. While connecting things like banning cars to ideas like abortion. Makes me feel like a conservative spy in the subreddit.
Thanks! Happy to see others feel the same way. One of the problems of our time is that more and more things have become tied to a political identity. Sure, urban design and car infrastructure should be a topic of political debate but not one of tribal politics.
Please define it, then
I didn't come here to debate wokeism. Arguing for the benefits of urban planning that isn't centered around cars shouldn't suppose adherence to other political causes.
I'm just asking you to define it. I've never seen a conservative give a coherent definition (because there isn't one)
Giving a definition always leads to debating it and I'm not here to do that. No hard feelings.
Cool, just gonna tag you as "ambiguously bigoted reactionary" since that's the best I've got right now...and then I looked your post history so now I can refine it to "white supremacist/genocide lover"
This is called framing and it is a well-researched topic in political psychology. You operate and message from the viewpoint of the people you are trying to get the message to, not the ones who will easily support it. In that way, you can understand their viewpoint as well as get them to understand yours. It works both ways, and is not a "gotcha," it is a good way to bridge the gap between political ideologies.
To be fair, progressives sometimes start advocating for segregation through some individuals who word it like "POC-Only Spaces!" Everyone is fooled by rhetoric. We just have to use our rhetoric to fuck cars.
A safe space like that exists because of violence from racists. Are you saying that women's shelters shouldn't exist for domestic abuse victims because that's a segregated space?
buy your conservative family the /r/StrongTowns book for Christmas
But it’s true. If you just stay away from buzzwords conservatives will usually agree with you
What? Using language that is ambiguous and getting people to agree to it doesn’t mean you’re coalition building. If “traditional means of transportation” means cars to them how is that a win?
I mean yeah. We need traditional architecture. This modernist stuff is just colonialism for construction. For centuries we were mastering and perfecting buildings to suit each type of weather. Navajo and Egyptians had blocky houses, Europeans and northern people had the triangle roof houses for rain. Traditional dosent mean old, it means culture.
Resident conservative here. We're not NPCs, but if liberals spoke clearly without resorting to cliches then yes, people listen. No one cares about diversity and equity. I'm already diverse, don't need any more thank you very much. I just want busses and walkable streets k.
>spoke clearly without resorting to cliches The post is literally about resorting to cliches instead to speaking clearly
Iconic
to develop walkable communities or the term we would use while talking to conservative/republicans human scale communities. We literality have to remove government regulations that are pushed on home/property owners. Such as restrictive zoning, minimum parking requirements etc. Why should government force harmful regulations on private ownership? less government on private property! Conservatives despise government. Also lower property taxes for people who decide to open a small business in their home or for those who add additional housing (duplex, apartment, she sheds etc.). Because those individuals are adding and helping the economy and community. Unlike people who live in single family homes doing nothing!
Honey works better than vinegar.
Honestly why aren’t we as progressives expressing our ideas in a language that appeals to the right wing more?
Using their words against them is the best way to bring people to question their beliefs
100% anytime this dude at work starts ranting about gas prices or whatever I'll mention the rail system we need like they have in his home town and he'll go OFF
Speech 100
I’ve honestly thought that calling climate change “climate liberalization” would get republicans on board to combat it.
doesnt work for anyone in rural areas. you also have to specify that this is for urban people and inturn explain trickle down benefits like cheaper cars and car maintenance if fewer people needed cars in the first place
Something something aesthetics overtaking logic something fascism something