This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So ive been trying to get involved in the local political seen. I live in jacksonville, Fl. I decided to vote straight D in hopes to get control over the housing crisis. Donna Deagan won against our republican Daniel Davis. Which is a happy victory that im thankful for. Many people dont live here in jax, but the top 3 issues for my city personally were housing, our shit-excuse for a downtown, and public transportation, all of which are currently abysmal. From what can tell, Deagan is mentioned zoning reform on her website (the only known way to decrease housing cost, losing the zoning laws to build more). She also mentioned making things more walkable, which im also in favor of. Along with bringing more small businesses to jax (if you dont live here, its kinda boring, its football, beer, shopping malls. Thats it. The most exciting place is the beaches)
Ive kinda been questioning how much this will mean. A lot of other cities have blue politics, and are still notorious for having the above problems, (well minus shitty down towns). But im still giving it a try. What i find frustrating however is how little people actually care for local politics, and how people blame things on the president or governor, without understanding anything. Housing is a good example, ive had a lot of passengers in my car (i drive for uber) blame his for the price of it, without actually understanding that the reason for housing cost is down to city politics, and not the state. (Same thing with people blaming the president for gas prices). Ive always felt as though a lot of political problems in the US would be solved if people engaged on the local level of politics more.
I can understand how someone living in Jacksonville might yearn for the more vibrant, walkable cities of the Blue states. But you might want to examine how these cities became what they are in the first place. Was it through the policies of the current Democratic party? No. It was generally due to these cities being settled before cars were in widespread use.
On the other hand, for those of us (probably the majority here) who do live in urban areas in blue states, we can see the real effects that the current Democratic party has had on our cities in the last 10 years. These include higher violent crime, much higher rates of homelessness and overdoses, higher taxation, and failing public schools. For example, King County (Seattle) has seen more overdoses in 2023 already than in all of 2020, which was already something like 1000% above rates from the 1990s. Furthermore, our transit systems have become unsafe to use and the cost of living is insane.
Are there any cities like Jacksonville which have actually achieved what you are looking for? Who did they vote for during that transition period? How do those policies look compared to the current Democratic and Republican parties.
You shouldn't vote based on "these people are saying some nice things, let's give that a try". You don't build walkable neighborhoods and lower housing costs out of thin air. And I've seen the slippery slope that leads from nice-sounding statements to women being pushed in front of a subway train by a drug-addicted lunatic.
I don't think this is a good explanation. This is Jacksonville in 1914. This is the same location today. It had transit and density, and like most US cities, probably removed it after cars started becoming common.
Your after image shows less streetside parking and the streetcar delete in favor of a bike lane and enlarged tree lined sidewalks (one is near triple width of the before, other is only double width).
The sidewalks are largely irrelevant, since at the time walking in the street was much more common and generally not illegal. Removing the streetcar is a substantial loss. The buildings on the left have been replaced with a parking garage, so the loss of street parking isn't very relevant either. This example is not as bad as many cities in the US, but it's certainly no improvement for pedestrians.
Google Maps shows a bus stop at the location you linked, with several routes passing through it. What advantage does the streetcar have over a bus?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link