I take public transit EVERY DAY. I loved my time city hopping in Europe. I want that SO badly for north america. I’m a very vocal proponent.
I grew up in a rural area. Our small area tried earnestly several times to get a bus route going. First with old school buses and then with some old city buses. They just couldn’t make it work. The population density just couldn’t support it.
My issue, as someone with their feet in two canoes, as they say, is with the mentality that rural populations are rounding areas unworthy of discussion or consideration. Broad statements that erase rural existence is alienating to these admittedly small percentages, but is alienating nonetheless
People who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere shouldn’t hold back the discussion of public transit and micromobility for the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in areas which are able to maintain that kind of public infrastructure.
The problem isn’t that these populations aren’t worthy of consideration; it’s that they don’t deserve to get brought up as “Well this doesn’t help me, who lives three miles out of the nearest town in a row of five houses” as a way to shut down discussion of something that would improve the lives of basically everyone. (It would help them too, of course, because it would decongest the streets when they do drive into town; it just wouldn’t obviate their car. Also, people in urban areas are subsidizing the everloving shit out of their infrastructure already to allow them to even live out there in the first place.)
What are you even talking about? They wrote: “My issue, as someone with their feet in two canoes, as they say, is with the mentality that rural populations are rounding areas [sic] unworthy of discussion or consideration. Broad statements that erase rural existence is alienating to these admittedly small percentages, but is alienating nonetheless.” My entire comment is spent addressing that paragraph. I’m sorry I chose to focus on the core point of their comment?
It’s unrelated because you’ve constructed a strawman who doesn’t want expansion of public transit who you’re thrashing when literally nobody has said that and literally everyone here has explicitly said they want expansion of public transit.
One needs to construct a strawman when the person you’re arguing with has made no attempt to make any kind of actual argument, and just thrust a single word into a discussion.
Maybe construct an argument of your own to get defensive about before reacting so harshly.
I could and did forgive the original response for exactly the reason you said.
But in my follow up, I clarified my position and point, and that being ignored is why I’m stating it as being a strawman. I explicitly said I support public transportation.
Let me say it again: I explicitly said I support public transportation.
Let me say it a FIFTH TIME NOW: I SUPPORT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
How many times need it be said before buddy stops characterizing my position as being against public transportation?
Where was this forgiveness you’re speaking of? All I see is you saying “I support public transport… but what about rural people? Their opinion matters!”
What is their opinion? You’ve made literally no mention of that… only that they should have an opinion, and people should listen to it.
Great. That’s fine. What is it, then? Cause you’ve given nothing other than a whole lot of whinging about nothing.
Read the comment chain again? After buddy’s initial response I just plainly outlined my position. I wasn’t like “you idiot, how could you possibly misunstand my one-word comment” because that would be insane and unfair.
After my explanation, he completely ignored literally everything I had said and at that point it became obvious they were arguing with a strawman.
Unless you can help me connect the dots between “I support public transit, I want north america to have what Europe has” and their bizarre assertion that somehow I’m arguing against it, then I don’t know how anyone could say that their response was even the slightest bit related to what I’d written.
Then what’s your perspective on the specific issue of this thread? You say your opinion is being erased… but all you’ve said so far is “I exist”. Which… okay? What impact would that have on literally anything related to this?
I mean, my input was that I think it’s shitty to suggest that things are complete solutions to any societal issue when it requires ignoring massive swathes of the total population.
I think it’s shitty when it comes up to double down and say those people don’t matter.
I think it’s shitty to say “well they chose that so fuck em”
Like, can you imagine saying “fuck people in Flint MI, they want safe drinking water they shouldn’t live in Flint, they chose this.”
Yeah, but that was the point you made after someone responded to your initial comment, and has literally no bearing on the discussion at hand. Except in a “but all lives matter” kind of way.
The irony here is that saying “Black Lives Matter” roots out who secretly hate about 20 percent of the population. They hear it and they just can’t keep their mouths shut, right?
I’M the one in your analogy saying Black Lives Matter. I’M the one saying that there is a minority group worthy of consideration. Everyone tripping over themselves to explain to me why rural people amount to, and I quote “a rounding error” are the people who are behaving like bigots.
I’m not disputing the benefits of public transit.
I take public transit EVERY DAY. I loved my time city hopping in Europe. I want that SO badly for north america. I’m a very vocal proponent.
I grew up in a rural area. Our small area tried earnestly several times to get a bus route going. First with old school buses and then with some old city buses. They just couldn’t make it work. The population density just couldn’t support it.
My issue, as someone with their feet in two canoes, as they say, is with the mentality that rural populations are rounding areas unworthy of discussion or consideration. Broad statements that erase rural existence is alienating to these admittedly small percentages, but is alienating nonetheless
People who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere shouldn’t hold back the discussion of public transit and micromobility for the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in areas which are able to maintain that kind of public infrastructure.
The problem isn’t that these populations aren’t worthy of consideration; it’s that they don’t deserve to get brought up as “Well this doesn’t help me, who lives three miles out of the nearest town in a row of five houses” as a way to shut down discussion of something that would improve the lives of basically everyone. (It would help them too, of course, because it would decongest the streets when they do drive into town; it just wouldn’t obviate their car. Also, people in urban areas are subsidizing the everloving shit out of their infrastructure already to allow them to even live out there in the first place.)
Are you even reading the messages you reply to? Can I get an unrelated rant too?
What are you even talking about? They wrote: “My issue, as someone with their feet in two canoes, as they say, is with the mentality that rural populations are rounding areas [sic] unworthy of discussion or consideration. Broad statements that erase rural existence is alienating to these admittedly small percentages, but is alienating nonetheless.” My entire comment is spent addressing that paragraph. I’m sorry I chose to focus on the core point of their comment?
It’s unrelated because you’ve constructed a strawman who doesn’t want expansion of public transit who you’re thrashing when literally nobody has said that and literally everyone here has explicitly said they want expansion of public transit.
One needs to construct a strawman when the person you’re arguing with has made no attempt to make any kind of actual argument, and just thrust a single word into a discussion.
Maybe construct an argument of your own to get defensive about before reacting so harshly.
I could and did forgive the original response for exactly the reason you said.
But in my follow up, I clarified my position and point, and that being ignored is why I’m stating it as being a strawman. I explicitly said I support public transportation.
Let me say it again: I explicitly said I support public transportation.
Let me say it a FIFTH TIME NOW: I SUPPORT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
How many times need it be said before buddy stops characterizing my position as being against public transportation?
Sincerely, how many times?
Where was this forgiveness you’re speaking of? All I see is you saying “I support public transport… but what about rural people? Their opinion matters!”
What is their opinion? You’ve made literally no mention of that… only that they should have an opinion, and people should listen to it.
Great. That’s fine. What is it, then? Cause you’ve given nothing other than a whole lot of whinging about nothing.
Read the comment chain again? After buddy’s initial response I just plainly outlined my position. I wasn’t like “you idiot, how could you possibly misunstand my one-word comment” because that would be insane and unfair.
After my explanation, he completely ignored literally everything I had said and at that point it became obvious they were arguing with a strawman.
Unless you can help me connect the dots between “I support public transit, I want north america to have what Europe has” and their bizarre assertion that somehow I’m arguing against it, then I don’t know how anyone could say that their response was even the slightest bit related to what I’d written.
Then what’s your perspective on the specific issue of this thread? You say your opinion is being erased… but all you’ve said so far is “I exist”. Which… okay? What impact would that have on literally anything related to this?
I take public transit EVERY DAY. I loved my time city hopping in Europe. I want that SO badly for north america. I’m a very vocal proponent.
So… you just wanted to be heard, but had no actual input to give?
I mean, my input was that I think it’s shitty to suggest that things are complete solutions to any societal issue when it requires ignoring massive swathes of the total population.
I think it’s shitty when it comes up to double down and say those people don’t matter.
I think it’s shitty to say “well they chose that so fuck em”
Like, can you imagine saying “fuck people in Flint MI, they want safe drinking water they shouldn’t live in Flint, they chose this.”
So, I mean, that’s my point.
Yeah, but that was the point you made after someone responded to your initial comment, and has literally no bearing on the discussion at hand. Except in a “but all lives matter” kind of way.
The irony here is that saying “Black Lives Matter” roots out who secretly hate about 20 percent of the population. They hear it and they just can’t keep their mouths shut, right?
I’M the one in your analogy saying Black Lives Matter. I’M the one saying that there is a minority group worthy of consideration. Everyone tripping over themselves to explain to me why rural people amount to, and I quote “a rounding error” are the people who are behaving like bigots.