this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
24 points (92.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9805 readers
288 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ConfidentLonely@lemmy.world
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
toaster@slrpnk.net
24
Can't tell if this is rage bait or just genuinely stupid (www.nationalreview.com)
submitted 3 days ago by talzag@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I’m sure the folks in this community are intelligent enough not to waste time reading National Review, but this is what passes for the conservative “intellectual” argument to keep killing ourselves and others.

By this logic, we shouldn’t have put any limits on tobacco, or required seatbelts.

I love that he just completely ignores the very real ecological impacts of cars in favor of freedom (to sit in traffic and pay an exorbitant amount of fees to insurance companies).

Speaking of freedom, he invokes the specter of surveillance in cities, but cars are literally just rolling computers now that already gather an incredible amount of our data.

There’s so many things wrong with the arguments in this piece, but they all kind of amount to vibes. I guess the author feels like auto drivers are oppressed 🙄.

Here’s an Apple News link for anyone with a News+ subscription: https://apple.news/A-nLoMHTOQlKGHiT9M_7SoA

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Improving liveability of cities ran up against far right online bullshit peddlers still hopped up on COVID lockdowns. They've somehow decided that congestion charges and pedestrianizing will result in people being monitored by CCTV and banned from leaving their assigned district. It's obviously false nonsense, but that's what they are referring to in this kind of screed. Their allies are primed to follow the "logic" from reducing traffic in cities to everyone being effectively under house arrest. Somehow it benefits (((the globalists))). I dunno.

[–] Naich@lemmings.world 8 points 3 days ago

Your car has an ID displayed at the front and rear, can only be driven in certain pre-defined places, and you can only drive it if the government allows you to. But yeah, freedom.

[–] talzag@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

I find it hard to believe that anyone actually believes all the surveillance fear mongering given how much surveillance actually occurs in reality. But then again, people have repeatedly shown themselves to be that stupid.