firmamenti
6mo ago
What is the pink site?
firmamenti
7mo ago
The fact that Gavin Newsome is even considering a presidential run and that there are people who think this is a good idea is a massive black pill for me.
California has got a practically divine set of advantages:
-
Some of the best geography in the world. Temperate climate, massive mountains which create plenty of fresh water for both the coastal cities as well as the extremely fertile central valley.
-
A massive coastline
-
The 20th century saw Entertainment and tech, some of the most lucrative industries in our country, base themselves in California.
-
Not much in the way of natural disasters. Some earthquakes and wildfires, but the wildfires are arguably California's fault, and the earthquakes dont' seem to be much of a problem for a 21st century city.
Despite having the money for it, the desire for it, and near total control of the government meaning free rein with the funding to pursue basically any policy they want, California feels like a failing civilization. Californians and the politicians they elect have squandered the biggest head start of anybody ever, and still instead of reflecting on their obvious failures of their ridiculous policies, they just keep doubling down.
Something I’ve noticed about gender trolls is that they feel like they can “gotcha” reality by redefining words.
Has anyone here ever heard of the “sovereign citizen” movement? A culture war adjacent recent happening was the trial of a mass murderer named “Darrel Brooks”. Darrell is, and also was, an adherent to this movement.
His belief was essentially that he could use some clever wording to get himself out of trouble for having obviously, on multiple videos, killed a bunch of people at a parade in Waukesha Wisconsin. Despite being obviously guilty of this crime, Darrel spent weeks wasting time arguing with the judge about him, the person in the courtroom, not being Darrel Brooks, but being a “third party intervenor”, as if this would catch the judge in a linguistic gotcha that would prove that the obvious objective reality that the court exists in wasnt actually so real after all.
You can see some of what I’m talking about here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jm-E3FNUIvs
What’s interesting about that these sovcits is that they aren’t stupid, the arguments they make have some internal consistency; it’s just that they think that if they torture the words enough, that they can warp reality.
I think the gender trolls are suffering from a similar sort of delusion. No matter how much somebody might torture the meaning of words, and no matter how complex and seemingly sophisticated these linguistic arguments might become (they do seem to get ever more complex over time), they will never change the reality that women are in fact women, and men are in fact men, and that there is a very very tiny minority of people who suffer from a genetic defect which causes them to be neither. You cannot make a linguistic argument that alters reality because the language is only a tool which describes reality.
Saying “well actually sex and gender are different! So this whole time when you’ve been using the worded gender to describe something, you didn’t realize but you were actually an adherent to my ideology!” Is just…silly. No, my mother saying “gender” because she does like saying “sex” in front of people, does not change what she meant, which was a description of a reality where men and women both exist.
firmamenti
9mo ago
How do people continue repeating this lie? You are wrong.
Here is one of the people involved: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2zLfBRgeFFo
"10 Held by H for the big guy"
H is Hunter, "The Big Guy" is joe. This isn't conjecture.
On October 15, the Post published another article regarding a business venture relating to CEFC China Energy that Hunter Biden was negotiating with potential investment partners in May 2017, when his father was a private citizen. The Post published a purported email it said came from the laptop, written by one of the prospective investors, on which Hunter Biden was copied. The email described the proposed equity shares of each of the investors in the venture, ending with a reference to "10 held by H for the big guy?" The Post reported the "H" apparently referred to Hunter Biden, and one of his former business partners soon came forward to assert "the big guy" referred to Joe Biden. The former business partner also tweeted a copy of the email addressed to him. In a subsequent email, Hunter Biden said his "Chairman" gave him "an emphatic no", with a later email identifying the "chairman" as his father. The Post also reported on an August 2017 venture Hunter Biden was seeking with Ye Jianming, the chairman of CEFC, but the paper did not associate Joe Biden with that deal. Neither of the two ventures came to fruition.[27][28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy?useskin=vector&useskin=vector
Why do people say stuff like this with such conviction when it is so easily verifiable that it's wrong. I'm sorry to get unnecesssarily upset at this but this entire topic is infuriating to me. Downthread in the discussion about January 6th, you also have a person asserting things about the riot that took place on that day, then exclaiming that "wow I had no idea who Ray Epps was, that is really weird. Huh".
Why do people do this? If you haven't bothered to do the bare minimum of research about a topic, please stick to asking questions about it or offering opinions on the stated facts, not asserting facts which are obviously incorrect.
What happens in these states if Trump wins? They’re claiming that Trump is ineligible to be the president. Will we see some sort of president in absentia?
This seems like pretty naked secession behavior. Legitimately terrifying.
And just because we’re really beyond words meaning anything: how is this not “disrupting an official proceeding” -> an insurrection?
This topic perhaps more than others is impossible to find good analysis of. Could some of you help me understand the arguments around something?
I routinely see people call Gaza "an open air prison". But...isnt' Egypt participating in this open air imprisonment? Egypt has a border with Gaza. If the Israelis are imprisoning the Gazans, then aren't the Egyptians doing the same thing?
And why would these two groups coordinate on this? Same question goes for: shutting of water/electricity. Why would Egypt help Israel with this? Why doesn't Egypt simply give the Gazans the water they need?
edit: I think my question was unclear here. I understand the obvious answers which are basically: Hamas/Gaza are terrorists. Of course Egypt doesn't want them. What I'm asking for is for somebody to steelman the liberal position that Gaza is an "open air prison" and that this is Israel's fault.
firmamenti
7mo ago
it’s illegal
To an outside this seems absolutely insane.
I remember a job I did in NYC once building a stage for a music festival. It was something custom we had built at home in Texas at our shop, then shipped to NYC to assemble. When we got on site, it was explained that the venue had a contract with a union and we were required to use their workers. This means every cable that was plugged in had to be plugged in by a union electrician, every piece of stage had to be assembled by a union carpenter, etc. It was madness. I cannot overstate the uselessness of these people. Absolutely the laziest, stupidest people I have ever met, and who seemed to be constantly on break.
If these are the same types of people working in auto factories, then it doesn’t seem like any of the automakers would be at any loss to simply fire them all.
How long can the strike go on before the company is allowed to just fire everybody?
firmamenti
7mo ago
Something I have found interesting about this is that there appears to be a substantial amount of people who are simply unaware of what actually happened here. I think there is such a saturation of "Israel punched Palestine! Palestine punched Israel!" that people have disconnected from it. What happened over the weekend is an evolution in terror attacks. To compare it to 9/11, for instance: 9/11 had the goal of killing as many Americans as possible, but whatever this is going to be called appears to have the intent of torturing as many Israelis as possible. If Hamas had blown up a building with 1000 Israelis in it, I don't think the response would be the same.
Hamas specifically targeted a music festival full of young people, especially women. They paraglided into this music festival and started mass raping the attendees, and killing the others. They then took some of the dead bodies of these women that they had raped back to Gaza, where they were paraded around to chants of "Allah Ackbar". They flooded into Sderot, and started going door to door executing people, and again raping and kidnapping others. There are videos that Hamas has posted online of them taunting (with the implication that they will eventually torture to death) a young boy about 8 years old.
There are reports (admittedly this is a terrible source) now that they kidnapped children and decapitated them.
I haven't seen anything like this (although I don't go seeking this stuff out. Maybe it's common and I don't know about it). I have heard stories about stuff like this on The Anti Humans, a podcast by Martyrmade about the horrors of WW2 (https://martyrmade.com/19-the-anti-humans/).
Raping people as a weapon, decapitating children, indiscriminately murdering kids at a music festival - this is all inhuman behavior. These are not people that are available for negotiation.
firmamenti
1yr ago
The state of Minnesota has passed a trans refuge bill.
Specifically, the bill would prohibit the enforcement of a court order for removal of a child or enforcement of another state’s law being applied in a pending child protection action in Minnesota when the law of another state allows the child to be removed from the parent or guardian for receiving medically necessary health care or mental health care that respects the gender-identity of the patient.
From my reading of this (not a lawyer, obvs): previously if a child ran away from home, and was found, the child would be returned to the child's parents. Now, however, if a child runs away from home, and claims a "transgender identity" the state will use its powers to keep the child from its parents.
This seems: absolutely pants-shittingly insane to me? Like I'm sortof reeling from disbelief at this and am still trying to figure out what I'm missing. This also seems to imply that if a child runs away to Minnesota, that the child will be kept in Minnesota away from his or her parents.
Can anybody help me understand this? This goes so far beyond anything that I had even considered in the realm of possibility that I'm sure I must be misunderstanding this.
As a related side note: I am reaching a point where reading things on this topic is becoming incredibly difficult. There seems to be so many seemingly double/triple/quadruple entendre words that its hard to follow.
firmamenti
9mo ago
There's something so weird about this to me.
Trump was actively involved in discussing and planning efforts to obstruct the certification of the election.
Sure in the most absolutely tortured meaning of the word "obstruct". His claim was that the election as being presented was invalid, and he was trying to use the court/legislative system to elucidate the correct/legal outcome.
This would be like if I got a traffic ticket, showed up in court and argued that the ticket was given in error, failed, and was then charged with "obstruction" for challenging the state.
If every challenge to an election is henceforward seen as "obstruction" then where the hell does that leave us? It seems to make elections a sortof winner takes all battle where the winners take office, and the losers end up in jail.
firmamenti
3mo ago
They've already set the precedent with Trump not debating for the primary, and Katie Hobbs not participating in her Gubernatorial debates in Arizona.
Biden has nothing to gain from debating Trump. Not only that, but Biden has all but completely stopped talked to the public aside from rehearsed speeches. On the rare occasions that they hold something roughly resembling a press conference, the questions appear to be preset, with the people asking them also preset. He won't even get in front of more or less friendly-to-him journalists. There's no way he's going to get in front of an openly hostile Trump.
firmamenti
10mo ago
How is it not absolutely self evident that the trains are coming for the children? I feel like you would need to be almost literally insane to think otherwise.
If they’re not coming for the children, then what is the purpose of states passing bills to make themselves trans sanctuaries or whatever? Why is pride stuff being put in schools? Who was the one that made the “protect queer children” sticker I saw this morning?
The idea that any person could reasonably say, in 2023, that gender fetishists are not coming for children is absurd. They are very clearly, very well fundedly, literally putting pride gear in major retailers, coming for your children.
At this point the optics don't matter. I genuinely believe that Israel could detonate some tactical nuclear weapons in Gaza, killing everybody there, including the prisoners, and would suffer almost no negative consequences for it.
Israel, and by extension the Jewish diaspora, has an absolute grasp on western media and government. During the American house speaker recall debate, one of the congresswomen gave a speech explaining that we should keep McCarthy as speaker because he has done the most to bring other congressmen to Israel. Major American policy debates center around support for Israel, a small foreign country.[1]
The Palestinian terror attacks were a type of brutality I don't think anybody in the modern western world has ever seen before. They were uniquely horrific, and I think this will be remembered as a turning point in modern history the same way that 9/11 was.
Israel is out for blood, and nobody in the west with any real power is going to stop them.
And by the way: good for them. I, a Catholic American, am jealous (although jealous is the wrong word since that sortof implies an animosity, which I have none of) of the power that the Jewish people have. Much of my criticism of The Church centers around not behaving more like The Jews. Why no Catholic equivalent to "Birthright Israel"? Why not make Catholics learn latin anymore? These are good things that people should do.
(Although I don't think they should be nuking Palestine.)
firmamenti
6mo ago
The government is dysfunctional. Being efficiently dysfunctional is not a good thing.
The reasons that Matt Gaetz etc. ousted McCarthy was because some of the terms he agreed to to get their votes he ended up violating. The main one was that they wanted to split "omnibus" bills into specific limited scope spending bills.
I say good.
I think the Liz Cheny/Mitt Romney/GOP Neocon wing of the republican party are being childish.
I also find the Democrat language around this annoying. If they care so much about getting the government running, put together a few people to vote for Jim Jordan and be done with it.
firmamenti
4mo ago
Whoa. In case anybody didn’t read the link:
NA, $90,000, to buy a year of his time. NA is an experienced Australian political operative "on a first name basis with multiple federal politicians". You might remember some of his comments and stories from the ACX comment section, where he goes by AshLael. He's interested in using his expertise to promote effective altruism, either by lobbying directly or by training EAs in how to produce political change. I have no idea what to do with him right now but I am going to figure it out and then do it. If you're in EA and have a good idea how to use this opportunity, please let me know.
A Gazan hospital has been hit, allegedly by a missile, allegedly by an Israeli missile: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/least-500-victims-israeli-air-strike-hospital-gaza-health-ministry-2023-10-17/
Here is why this seems incredibly unlikely to me:
-
Israel gains nothing from this.
-
Israel loses a lot from this.
-
Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc. whatever amalgamation of actors here are opposing Israel have demonstrated that they are willing to strike their own people.
-
Hamas etc. gain a lot from this (politically).
The narrative around this is already forming and I suspect that we will never be free of knowing that Israel for sure bombed a hospital (maybe they did).
This will be a major inflection point in this war. Causalities are approaching 1000 people (started at 500, now at 800)
Edit: here’s also why I’m so suspicious of this. If it’s true that Israel bombed this hospital, it basically evaporates any amount of good will I had for them. The 10/7 Hamas attacks were terrible. This is just as bad. Pull our aircraft carriers back, no aid, nothing. Still send in some bad hombres to get our citizens out, but other than that Israel is on its own, and I don’t want to hear any ridiculous moralizing from any us politician ever again.
Edit2: There are allegedly demonstrations happening in several countries now. Extremely dynamic news environment. Nobody knows wtf is going on. Israel is starting to get their narrative together about the cause of this, but it's way too late for them to get ahold of it.
Edit3: allegedly a video of both the initial rocket launch, as well as the explosion: https://twitter.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1714379242983846126
This matches up with the very first video of the rocket hitting the hospital, and answers why the guy filming was filming (because there were a bunch of rockets going overhead)
Here is this post, but I asked chatGPT to simply make it longer.
In the future, it may be a good idea to filter all posts through an LLM so that they fulfill length requirements:
The recent passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein has indeed marked a significant moment in the political history of California, as it not only reflects upon the substantial tenure of a seasoned senator but also kickstarts the gears of electoral machinery to fill the now-vacant seat. This unfolding situation beckons a thorough examination amidst a myriad of discussions among political analysts, potential candidates, and the general electorate in California and beyond. Reflecting upon history provides a lens to understand the forthcoming political scenario. Unforeseen Senate vacancies have often led to midterm or special elections, the instances of Martha McSally's election in 2019 following John McCain's death, and Edward J. Markey's election in 2013 post John Kerry's resignation stand as testimonials to such historical precedence.
Delving into the legal framework, California law mandates the Governor to announce a special election within a fortnight of the vacancy, with the election to be held between 112 and 140 days post-announcement. This relatively brief yet crucial timeline sets the stage for an intense period of campaigning for potential successors and a whirlwind of information dissemination for the voters. The succinct period earmarked for campaigning necessitates potential candidates to hit the ground running, mobilizing support and articulating their policy stance to the electorate. This period also challenges the voters to sift through the information, analyze the policy propositions of the candidates, and make an informed decision on election day.
The political ambiance is already abuzz with speculation regarding potential candidates who might vie for the vacant seat. Names like California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, and Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti, have been floated around in political circles, albeit it's still early days. The political ideologies and past performances of these potential candidates could significantly shape the narrative of the election, and subsequently, the ideological leaning of the elected successor. The spectrum of political ideology that these candidates represent could potentially sway the policy trajectory that California embarks upon in the forthcoming years.
A predominant part of the discourse centers around whether Feinstein's successor will embody a more progressive or a traditionally liberal stance. Although sometimes used interchangeably, the terms 'progressive' and 'liberal' encapsulate different political ideologies. Progressives often advocate for more radical reforms, pushing the boundaries of traditional policy frameworks to address systemic issues, while liberals tend to favor a more moderate, incremental approach towards policy reform. The dichotomy between progressive and liberal ideologies is not just a semantic one, but reflects a deeper ideological chasm that could significantly impact policy formulation and implementation.
Several political analysts have delved into this discussion, reflecting upon the growing ideological divide within the Democratic party, both at a state and national level. This debate is not confined to California but mirrors a broader national dialogue concerning the trajectory of the Democratic party. The discourse encapsulates various facets of policy debates, from healthcare reform to climate change mitigation strategies, and reflects a broader ideological struggle within the party. Quoting a political analyst from The Washington Post, "The forthcoming election in California is a microcosm of the broader ideological struggle within the Democratic party, reflecting the tension between a growing progressive faction and a more established liberal base."
The impending election is not just about filling a vacant seat; it's potentially a narrative on a shift in California's political ideology. It's about the candidates, their campaigns, the voter turnout, and how these elements coalesce to pen the next chapter of California's political narrative. The narratives that emerge from campaigns, the debates that ensue, and the eventual electoral outcome will collectively narrate the next chapter of California's political saga. Set against the backdrop of a dynamically evolving American political landscape, this election is a testament to the continuous, unfolding story of democracy. The ripple effects of this election could potentially reverberate beyond the borders of California, impacting the national political narrative and the policy discourse within the Democratic party.
In conclusion, the election to fill Senator Dianne Feinstein's vacant seat is not just an electoral event, but a significant political occasion that could potentially mark a shift in California's political ideology and have broader implications on the national political landscape. The discourse surrounding this election, the candidates that emerge, and the eventual electoral outcome will be keenly observed, analyzed, and discussed in the days and months to come, embodying the dynamic nature of the American political system and the continuous evolution of political ideology and policy discourse.
It may also be a good idea to then use a similar LLM to summarize the post. Here is a good summary/higher information density version of the above:
The passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein prompts a special election in California, as per state law, to fill the vacant seat. Historically, such elections like Martha McSally's in 2019 and Edward J. Markey's in 2013 have followed Senate vacancies. Speculated candidates include California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, and Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti. A key discussion surrounds whether a progressive or a traditionally liberal Democrat will succeed, reflecting a broader ideological divide within the Democratic party. The election outcome may signify a shift in California's political ideology, potentially impacting national political narratives and the Democratic party's policy trajectory.
And then a very good description. In my opinion this is the best example of what a high conceptual information density top post should look like, and while help facilitate the most useful discussion:
The passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein triggers a special election in California, with speculated candidates like Alex Padilla and Eric Garcetti. The election sparks discussions on whether a progressive or traditionally liberal Democrat will succeed, reflecting a broader ideological divide within the party, potentially impacting national political narratives.
—-
If anybody wants help decompressing their posts or repeating the same ideas a few times to fulfill length requirements, chatGPT is good, mistral was also just released and is supposedly really good too.
firmamenti
5mo ago
A 7 day ban for this is incredibly excessive. This user is clearly a good contributor, despite drunkpoasting one thing on a holiday. Banning people like this also deprives other users of good discussions. One day would be both appropriate and also funny, and not punish everyone else.
Unless this person has some history of this and bans: this is a ridiculous response.
The revealed preference here is glaring.
People aren’t using the preferred pronouns if a child killer, because they don’t care about the preferences of a child killer.
But what that reveals as that even among the most woke, there are no true gender ideology believers. They still know that what they’re doing is a courtesy, not a reflection of reality.
And when they don’t like the person, the courtesy is dropped and the reality is revealed.
Speaking of woke people and their revealed preferences, perhaps the worst take came from David Pakman, who took the opportunity to make fun of the dead children being dead, suggesting it was because they didn’t pray hard enough:
https://twitter.com/dpakman/status/1640666981593382913
He deleted the tweet, but it is archived: https://archive.ph/6Tp4c
When people had the nerve to respond negatively to this, he of course pointed out to them that requesting he not dance on the graves of dead children is anti semitic.
firmamenti
1yr ago
I wish I could show these statements to people even a few years ago. “Don’t worry, the chemical castration we will do to your children is probably reversible, and we only physical mutilate some of them!”
It’s just incomprehensible. How did we get here?
firmamenti
1yr ago
The reactions to this video are strange to me.
-
The attacker is smiling because he is a drug addict having a manic episode.
-
Paul is smiling because he is trying to mirror the attackers demeanor as an attempt to de-escalate the situation. Paul is a hyper-social business person and married to one of the most powerful political operatives in the world.
-
Paul isn't wearing a button down dress shirt, he's wearing pajamas.
-
He's wearing boxer shorts because he was asleep and that's probably what he sleeps in.
-
He's probably holding a beer or other drink in his hand because he's been trying to calm the attacker down and buy time. If a manic schizophrenic broke into my house and I was trying to buy time, asking them if it was okay if I got a drink while we waited for Nancy to get home (waiting for the cops to arrive) seems completely reasonable. Or asking him if he wanted something.
This video seems completely boring to me. To be clear, the narrative surrounding it is also completely ridiculous.
Camouflage and Harley Davidson cans aren’t going to fix this, and they might just make it worse.
“Hey you dumb fucking red necks I bet you’d like some camouflage on your cans wouldn’t you you dumb fucking fratty racists. Now buy our shit and shut the fuck up while we core out your culture, you dumb fucking idiots.”
If I was in charge of Bud Lights marketing it would go like this:
“Ever had to apologize for saying something stupid?” With a strong implication that you’re talking about being a drunken idiot.
“…yeah we’re sorry. Free buds on us”
The make June 1st official “bud light we fucked up” day for the next 5 years. Here’s how you celebrate:
Commemorative cans that say “Sorry about what we said last night”, and every bar that serves Bud light gets a free keg and a free pallet of Bud light to give away to people who want it. Make it part of the marketing go apologize to anybody you sent drunk texts to. Make ads about people making these sorts of apologies.
Go on a Bud light apology tour where people can throw tomatoes or something at Bud light executives. Free food and of course Bud light for everybody.
I’d go to that, and honest it would probably make me drink some Bud light because of how funny it would be.
Sorry for the doomer take, but I don't see a solution to this. NAFTA, unchecked immigration, the sexual revolution and its consequences, and constant race baiting is collapsing our society.
The problem isn't guns, the problem is that there are millions of disaffected people living in a country founded on the idea of individual human rights. That works when the people are hyper-invested in their families and the future that they'll be living in; that doesn't work when everybody is depressed and hates each other. No amount of restrictions or "doing something" is going to change that.
How do you solve the problem? I don't know, man. Maybe it's something [not so] simple like: Make everybody go back to church, bring the jobs back, undo the social problems created due to the sexual revolution, and encourage people to create families (but like I said, get people back in church, preferably a Catholic church).
How many of these mass shooters have been men living with a wife and kids? 0?
I think that a program to make angry young man with no sense of hope about the future and an intense hatred of the present care more about the future and have some investment in the present might work better than constant kvetching and trampling on human rights. In fact, I suspect that more trampling on human rights will probably make the problem worse.
But hey: it's only the future. Not that big of a deal, right? Let's let some dorky lawyers and political grifters figure it out, they've been doing a really good job on everything else! Hey maybe we can get a McKinsey consultant on the job!
firmamenti
7mo ago
Some of the people replying here seem completely out of touch with the right wing. I have no idea where they are getting some of these ideas.
The right doesn't like the war in Ukraine because they don't feel like it serves the vital national security interests of The United States. They suspect that it is a handout to the defense industry. As far as why they don't support this when they did support the war in Iraq/etc.: they talk pretty extensively about how the Cheneys lied us into this war, and how Ruper Murdoch (and fox news) helped. They feel betrayed by this.
They talk about it all the time.
Tucker Carlson, who was previously one of the (if not the) most popular host on cable news talked about this extensively.
I don't think it's complicated.
I am not on the left, so can't comment on why they seem to support it so strongly. My suspicion is that 4 years martingaling[1] the claims about Russian interference in our elections have built Russia and Putin into something resembling a Marvel comic villain and/or the nazis.
[1]Martingale betting strategy is just that every time you lose, you double down. Eventually you win and you win big. This applies to compulsive lying in: every time you get caught in a lie, you just double down and make the claims even more fantastic. Conspiracy theorists do this. It's basically how you get qanon.
God I seriously wish that some of these anti-car people could just spend a month actually living in the "car free" cities that they think everybody wants so they could realize how terrible it is.
People point at some fairy tale version of a Finnish city where there's playgrounds everywhere and people are walking around drinking espressos and beers and wearing scarves and children are laughing and playing with one another in city squares.
It's not the lack of cars that is causing this unless cars is some sort of euphamism and I'm just not pol-pilled enough to understand what you guys mean when you envision a car free city. My city is a "walkable" city. From where I am sitting typing this there are a dozen coffee shops within a 5 minute walk, countless bars and restaurants, shopping, there's a train that goes literally right in front of my house, and a stop for that train a block away. There are 5 parks I can think of offhand that are within the same 5 minute walk from my house.
Guess what? I still drive EVERYWHERE I go.
I can bike, but if I bike I have to carry a 20lb chain with me to lock it, and even then I worry about the wheels being stolen, the seat being stolen, the lights being stolen, or some other set of things being stolen. ALL of this has happened to me or people I am close friends with. I have had bikes stolen that were locked up, parts stolen off of my bikes, etc.
I can walk, but I have to take a bizarre circuitous route that avoids: the park, the local drug store, all of the bus stops, all of the train stops, and any convenience stores which are currently being used as homeless shelters and drug injection sites. Even still I've had friends robbed or beaten up walking through my city.
I could take the idiotic train that our city is so proud of (and everybody who can actively avoids), and be accosted by the schizophrenic psychopaths who are using the train as a refuge from the weather.
The parks are de facto homeless encampments, meaning if I want to take my kids to play, guess where I go? 30 minutes out into the suburbs.
This idea that "boomers like cars and ruined everything by making car centric cities" is absurd and I can only assume is parroted by people who never leave their goon caves.
More options
Context Copy link