True, it’s retarded we need so many cars. But they also literally connect the world, and if used correctly, help us see new things and understand the world better.
Then let’s go back to ridding horses and after that we can all deal with the amount of abuse the animals have to endure to provide transportation, for people and cargo. And while we’re at it, let’s also ruin the concept of emergency delivery of organs for transplant or emergency medical care. Not that the last one is relevant for the USofA but since we have the opportunity, let’s stack the shit as high as we can manage.
Travelling would become a fun endeavour again, I’ll risk, both for work, leisure and family affairs. And aren’t we glad for having wagon trains moving food items across large stretches of land again? Fresh food, nobody real needs it; if you want it, plant and raise it yourself.
And electrical vehicles are loud and slow? Which ones? I’ll take a fleet of EVs “roaring” by my door the entire night over having one single conventional car with a tricked exhaust line or a lead footed idiot at the wheel driving by.
About danger? Biggest danger in any car is found between the seat and the wheel.
Trains. The answer is trains. Just because you are uncreative in using technology as it exists today does not mean that we have to go back to the stone age to find a low-emissions and safe means of transportation.
Trains can’t be the answer. What are you gonna do, put large networks railroads connecting every part of a city easily and accessibly, perhaps underground so they stay out of the way and can operate without unduly harming the natural environment? Let me guess, you also want to put railways stretching across countries so that large amount of people and/ or cargo can be transported with relative speed and efficiency while also avoiding creating large swaths of asphalt wastelands? Preposterous!
How convenient it is then, that local transportation is also a thing that exists.
Edit: not sure if I was blocked or if it’s just an error… but here’s my reply for anyone that isn’t so sensitive to being challenged on their view of the world
That is also very obviously not what I am talking about, nor is it where the vast majority of people in the US who use cars, are living. but good for you. The only moral car ownership is MY car ownership, and the two can’t possibly exist alongside each other, therefore shut up about public transportation we can’t have it sorry.
I live in an area with around 10.000 inhabitants and besides a single bus that swings by every hour, where most of the population is over 60 years old, there are no public transportation options.
Mass transportation requieres masses.
P.s.
Only gave you low hanging fruit to pick.
This applies here and anywhere where population has very low density per square kilometer. Public transportation becomes ineffective and a 10 minute drive easily turns into an hour or two affairs. And taxis/Ubers/whatever are not affordable for making daily use of it.
What if we build railroads to everyone’s home and made little self contained train engines which can easily switch rails and take you exactly where you want to be rather than within a mile or 20 of where you want to be? It’s the fuuuutuurreee
What if we built more homes within a few hundred feet of a public transport stop and built societies where we don’t all hate each other and can’t stand to spend more than a few hours in the same building with people that aren’t in our direct household?
You just stated in you previous comment those are:
Still loud, slow, and dangerous.
Am I misrepresenting you?
If you’re advocating for universal public/mass transportation, that is a fine cause but learn to measure your words and take into consideration those means of transportation can not be used by many, be it by health reasons or difficulty of location.
It makes no sense to expect a bus to travel through high country where two chickens and a dog live or an older person to just pick up their bycicle and make a 20km trip to town for groceries. Also take into account mass transportation requires masses of people and not all places gather that volume of bodies.
Yes, electric cars are loud, slow, and dangerous. It’s okay to accept such costs in order to quickly get a patient to a hospital or to put out a fire. It’s not okay to accept those costs as the result of business as usual.
This comment was reported for the use of the word “retard”. Watch the language if you please. Having grown up in the 90s, I get that the word is part of an older lexicon, but it doesn’t make it any more socially acceptable
Since you robbed anyone else from participating in the conversation when you removed my last comment explaining myself, let’s try this again.
I will never again degrade my self worth by editing who I am or what I say to make other people happy. I have NEVER used the word ‘retard’ from a place of hatred or anger, in this thread or otherwise (if I did, this would be a very different situation). I have only ever used it as a descriptive word in a mildly humerous post meant to generate discussion. You are literally the only one here acting like a child that can’t handle a simple word, everyone else is perfectly happy going about their day with maturity.
I’m not asking you to censor yourself, or to undermine your self-worth. I’m saying that if your comment ruffles feathers to the point that I get a comment report, I’m going to address it. You’re free to speak how you please, but freedom of speech is not freedom from repercussions. I touch on this in other parts of the thread.
I’m not interested in discussing this topic further, and would appreciate it if we could shelve it.
If I were truly free to say as I please then you wouldn’t remove my comments. These are not repercussions, they are censorship for you also removed comments that did not use the scary words. Also I’m pretty certain I ruffled exactly one (ok, maybe two or three) feathers, if it’s that big a deal then place a content warning or message around the comment. Don’t obliterate from history so no one can ever see it again, morally speaking it is not your sole place to decide what can be written and read.
Just a heads up, your comment above currently has a score of -9 for me right now. That means at least 11 people downvoted, and more if anyone upvoted.
Do you think Nazis should also be allowed to say anything they want without restriction? Should any language have consequences? I assume you would agree some restrictions are good. You just think it shouldn’t effect you.
Do you think Nazis should also be allowed to say anything they want without restriction?
The only answer to this can only ever be a complete and utter, yes. It’s that or we need to stop pretending that free speech is actually a thing. Either speech is free for every single person, no exceptions, ever, or it is NOT free. The reciprocal of that is (and absolutely should be) that anyone can simply choose not to listen and tell them to shut the fuck up, something for which you are trying to take full advantage of right now I’m sure
Language should NEVER have even the slightest hint of a restriction placed upon it, that is always a slippery and dangerous slope that has historically led to people losing their social autonomy and civil rights. The ONLY exception to this is if the language is used to directly harm, then it is no longer language, it is a weapon and should definitely be restricted. I am completely fine with being beholden to those restrictions, when they are applied properly.
Free speech is not what you think it is. Free speech means the government won’t stop you from speaking. It doesn’t mean you are allowed to say anything you want. You need to go back to middle school civics.
If there is no limit to tolerance, the intolerant will abuse that and we end up with an intolerant society. Tolerance is a social contract. If you break it, you are no longer tolerated.
The ONLY exception to this is if the language is used to directly harm, then it is no longer language, it is a weapon and should definitely be restricted.
Cool. Then stop using that word. It is directly harmful to some people.
Free speech does actually mean anyone can “articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.” Look I can post Wikipedia links too, yay! Only the last bit pertains exclusively to governments. I am not advocating for universal tolerance and you do not have to tolerate anything anyone says, ever. But, that doesn’t also mean you or anyone else gets to have any say in the language that any other person uses to communicate their ideas or feelings. If that were not true then free speech would simply not exist.
Then stop using that word. It is directly harmful to some people.
No one is being directly harmed because no one can be directly harmed as the word has never once been directed at anyone (except deer) in this entire thread. Something which could be easily known if the comments still existed to give context to this whole situation. Words and language are not like physical objects in that they can not cause harm via accident. They can only ever have the meaning we give them and the impact that we choose to allow them to have on us, never anything more. Absolutely no one has been harmed here that did not, themselves, choose to be harmed.
Acting like you’re mature while complaining that someone corrected your language on the internet. Lol. Your self-worth is hopefully not tied to the usage of a slur. If it is, well you must not be worth much.
First, I’m not really complaining as much as explaining and my language hasn’t been ‘corrected’. It has merely, rather annoyingly, been censored by the decision of a single person thereby destroying any chance for someone else to come along and join the conversion. In my opinion that is extremely immature, especially coming from a moderator.
Second, and this is the point I’ve been trying to make, language is mired in situation and driven by intent when it crosses cultural bounds, almost never by social connotation (language is defined solely by small social circles, not by big ones like a bunch of random internet strangers that we all are). In this situation, my use of the word could never have been directed at anyone and my intention was always pretty clear. Avoiding the use of a word simply because it’s not considered politically correct by some, especially when it’s obvious the word is not being used to harm, is really dumb way to live life. Any one of us could simply invent a new word and give it the same harmful meaning, but that only matters if we all pretend it actually matters.
Third, trying to force someone to change how they interact and communicate with the world is absolutely a degradation of ones self-worth. This is not a kind or equal world if it dictates the words of others unless those words are directly used to harm or control. The big scary R word is not a slur unless it is being used as one (It’s most definitely not here). Again, I could call someone a “Flargasnorgen” with the intention of hatred and anger and cause the same harm. It would likely require the use of several other supporting words to convey that meaning, does that then make all those other words big scary words that we can’t say too?
Fourth, I never said I was being mature, I can be petty as fuck.
OK, I’ll explain this to you. Using the word as an insult means that it’s a bad thing to be. For example, the word sinister refers to left-handed people (though so far removed that most don’t know this). It was used to say something is evil, and in turn to call people who are left-handed evil. It was insulting to left-handed people by association.
If, for example, I were to use blonde to refer negatively to someone, it’d imply that it’s wrong to be blonde and blondes should be ashamed of who they are, right? Consider how you’d feel if we used a part of who you are as an insult. You wouldn’t enjoy seeing it used probably, right? Hopefully you’d have some empathy and stop, but maybe that’s too much to ask for.
Acting like you’re actually the one being oppressed is honestly hilarious while you insult a group of people.
Look man, if people are out here dropping n bombs, you know, serious stuff, feel free to intervene. But trying to police “retard” is some reddit/zoomer nonsense.
Again, I hear you, but I really don’t see much difference between your example, calling people a bundle of sticks, and the R word other than advocacy and social awareness.
You’re free to express your opinions, but freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of repercussions.
I don’t like tone policing but if something is reported I’m going to address it
True, it’s retarded we need so many cars. But they also literally connect the world, and if used correctly, help us see new things and understand the world better.
There’s no correct way to use cars. We need zero emissions.
No, we need zero deaths by cars.
Solar charged electric cars are zero emissions.
they still emit tire particles and brake dust.
Still loud, slow, and dangerous.
Very well.
Then let’s go back to ridding horses and after that we can all deal with the amount of abuse the animals have to endure to provide transportation, for people and cargo. And while we’re at it, let’s also ruin the concept of emergency delivery of organs for transplant or emergency medical care. Not that the last one is relevant for the USofA but since we have the opportunity, let’s stack the shit as high as we can manage.
Travelling would become a fun endeavour again, I’ll risk, both for work, leisure and family affairs. And aren’t we glad for having wagon trains moving food items across large stretches of land again? Fresh food, nobody real needs it; if you want it, plant and raise it yourself.
And electrical vehicles are loud and slow? Which ones? I’ll take a fleet of EVs “roaring” by my door the entire night over having one single conventional car with a tricked exhaust line or a lead footed idiot at the wheel driving by.
About danger? Biggest danger in any car is found between the seat and the wheel.
Trains. The answer is trains. Just because you are uncreative in using technology as it exists today does not mean that we have to go back to the stone age to find a low-emissions and safe means of transportation.
Trains can’t be the answer. What are you gonna do, put large networks railroads connecting every part of a city easily and accessibly, perhaps underground so they stay out of the way and can operate without unduly harming the natural environment? Let me guess, you also want to put railways stretching across countries so that large amount of people and/ or cargo can be transported with relative speed and efficiency while also avoiding creating large swaths of asphalt wastelands? Preposterous!
I love trains but trains can’t reach everywhere.
And if you can’t spot comedic exaggeration, I apologise.
How convenient it is then, that local transportation is also a thing that exists.
Edit: not sure if I was blocked or if it’s just an error… but here’s my reply for anyone that isn’t so sensitive to being challenged on their view of the world
There you go again proving that you are both uncurious and uncreative in using technology as it already exists today.
That is also very obviously not what I am talking about, nor is it where the vast majority of people in the US who use cars, are living. but good for you. The only moral car ownership is MY car ownership, and the two can’t possibly exist alongside each other, therefore shut up about public transportation we can’t have it sorry.
!fuckcars@lemmy.world
!fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
Have you read my other reply?
Wait, let me check.
No, don’t have it. And I wish I had.
I live in an area with around 10.000 inhabitants and besides a single bus that swings by every hour, where most of the population is over 60 years old, there are no public transportation options.
Mass transportation requieres masses.
P.s.
Only gave you low hanging fruit to pick.
This applies here and anywhere where population has very low density per square kilometer. Public transportation becomes ineffective and a 10 minute drive easily turns into an hour or two affairs. And taxis/Ubers/whatever are not affordable for making daily use of it.
What if we build railroads to everyone’s home and made little self contained train engines which can easily switch rails and take you exactly where you want to be rather than within a mile or 20 of where you want to be? It’s the fuuuutuurreee
What if we built more homes within a few hundred feet of a public transport stop and built societies where we don’t all hate each other and can’t stand to spend more than a few hours in the same building with people that aren’t in our direct household?
Lol
This is the first time I’ve heard “cars cause political division”. Nice.
We can use electric cars for emergency services, but all non emergency personal travel should be buses, trams, trains, and bicycles.
You just stated in you previous comment those are:
Am I misrepresenting you?
If you’re advocating for universal public/mass transportation, that is a fine cause but learn to measure your words and take into consideration those means of transportation can not be used by many, be it by health reasons or difficulty of location.
It makes no sense to expect a bus to travel through high country where two chickens and a dog live or an older person to just pick up their bycicle and make a 20km trip to town for groceries. Also take into account mass transportation requires masses of people and not all places gather that volume of bodies.
Yes, electric cars are loud, slow, and dangerous. It’s okay to accept such costs in order to quickly get a patient to a hospital or to put out a fire. It’s not okay to accept those costs as the result of business as usual.
Out of morbid curiosity: define “loud” and “slow”. Indulge me.
This comment was reported for the use of the word “retard”. Watch the language if you please. Having grown up in the 90s, I get that the word is part of an older lexicon, but it doesn’t make it any more socially acceptable
Since you robbed anyone else from participating in the conversation when you removed my last comment explaining myself, let’s try this again.
I will never again degrade my self worth by editing who I am or what I say to make other people happy. I have NEVER used the word ‘retard’ from a place of hatred or anger, in this thread or otherwise (if I did, this would be a very different situation). I have only ever used it as a descriptive word in a mildly humerous post meant to generate discussion. You are literally the only one here acting like a child that can’t handle a simple word, everyone else is perfectly happy going about their day with maturity.
I’m not asking you to censor yourself, or to undermine your self-worth. I’m saying that if your comment ruffles feathers to the point that I get a comment report, I’m going to address it. You’re free to speak how you please, but freedom of speech is not freedom from repercussions. I touch on this in other parts of the thread.
I’m not interested in discussing this topic further, and would appreciate it if we could shelve it.
If I were truly free to say as I please then you wouldn’t remove my comments. These are not repercussions, they are censorship for you also removed comments that did not use the scary words. Also I’m pretty certain I ruffled exactly one (ok, maybe two or three) feathers, if it’s that big a deal then place a content warning or message around the comment. Don’t obliterate from history so no one can ever see it again, morally speaking it is not your sole place to decide what can be written and read.
Just a heads up, your comment above currently has a score of -9 for me right now. That means at least 11 people downvoted, and more if anyone upvoted.
Do you think Nazis should also be allowed to say anything they want without restriction? Should any language have consequences? I assume you would agree some restrictions are good. You just think it shouldn’t effect you.
The only answer to this can only ever be a complete and utter, yes. It’s that or we need to stop pretending that free speech is actually a thing. Either speech is free for every single person, no exceptions, ever, or it is NOT free. The reciprocal of that is (and absolutely should be) that anyone can simply choose not to listen and tell them to shut the fuck up, something for which you are trying to take full advantage of right now I’m sure
Language should NEVER have even the slightest hint of a restriction placed upon it, that is always a slippery and dangerous slope that has historically led to people losing their social autonomy and civil rights. The ONLY exception to this is if the language is used to directly harm, then it is no longer language, it is a weapon and should definitely be restricted. I am completely fine with being beholden to those restrictions, when they are applied properly.
You can say what ever you want in your own place. This place isn’t yours and we reserve the right to show you the door.
Free speech is not what you think it is. Free speech means the government won’t stop you from speaking. It doesn’t mean you are allowed to say anything you want. You need to go back to middle school civics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
If there is no limit to tolerance, the intolerant will abuse that and we end up with an intolerant society. Tolerance is a social contract. If you break it, you are no longer tolerated.
Cool. Then stop using that word. It is directly harmful to some people.
Free speech does actually mean anyone can “articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.” Look I can post Wikipedia links too, yay! Only the last bit pertains exclusively to governments. I am not advocating for universal tolerance and you do not have to tolerate anything anyone says, ever. But, that doesn’t also mean you or anyone else gets to have any say in the language that any other person uses to communicate their ideas or feelings. If that were not true then free speech would simply not exist.
No one is being directly harmed because no one can be directly harmed as the word has never once been directed at anyone (except deer) in this entire thread. Something which could be easily known if the comments still existed to give context to this whole situation. Words and language are not like physical objects in that they can not cause harm via accident. They can only ever have the meaning we give them and the impact that we choose to allow them to have on us, never anything more. Absolutely no one has been harmed here that did not, themselves, choose to be harmed.
Acting like you’re mature while complaining that someone corrected your language on the internet. Lol. Your self-worth is hopefully not tied to the usage of a slur. If it is, well you must not be worth much.
First, I’m not really complaining as much as explaining and my language hasn’t been ‘corrected’. It has merely, rather annoyingly, been censored by the decision of a single person thereby destroying any chance for someone else to come along and join the conversion. In my opinion that is extremely immature, especially coming from a moderator.
Second, and this is the point I’ve been trying to make, language is mired in situation and driven by intent when it crosses cultural bounds, almost never by social connotation (language is defined solely by small social circles, not by big ones like a bunch of random internet strangers that we all are). In this situation, my use of the word could never have been directed at anyone and my intention was always pretty clear. Avoiding the use of a word simply because it’s not considered politically correct by some, especially when it’s obvious the word is not being used to harm, is really dumb way to live life. Any one of us could simply invent a new word and give it the same harmful meaning, but that only matters if we all pretend it actually matters.
Third, trying to force someone to change how they interact and communicate with the world is absolutely a degradation of ones self-worth. This is not a kind or equal world if it dictates the words of others unless those words are directly used to harm or control. The big scary R word is not a slur unless it is being used as one (It’s most definitely not here). Again, I could call someone a “Flargasnorgen” with the intention of hatred and anger and cause the same harm. It would likely require the use of several other supporting words to convey that meaning, does that then make all those other words big scary words that we can’t say too?
Fourth, I never said I was being mature, I can be petty as fuck.
OK, I’ll explain this to you. Using the word as an insult means that it’s a bad thing to be. For example, the word sinister refers to left-handed people (though so far removed that most don’t know this). It was used to say something is evil, and in turn to call people who are left-handed evil. It was insulting to left-handed people by association.
If, for example, I were to use blonde to refer negatively to someone, it’d imply that it’s wrong to be blonde and blondes should be ashamed of who they are, right? Consider how you’d feel if we used a part of who you are as an insult. You wouldn’t enjoy seeing it used probably, right? Hopefully you’d have some empathy and stop, but maybe that’s too much to ask for.
Acting like you’re actually the one being oppressed is honestly hilarious while you insult a group of people.
I was insulting deer ffs, people never even entered the equation
🙄
I hear you. But I take my job half seriously
Look man, if people are out here dropping n bombs, you know, serious stuff, feel free to intervene. But trying to police “retard” is some reddit/zoomer nonsense.
Again, I hear you, but I really don’t see much difference between your example, calling people a bundle of sticks, and the R word other than advocacy and social awareness.
You’re free to express your opinions, but freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of repercussions.
I don’t like tone policing but if something is reported I’m going to address it
Removed by mod
Mods so salty they won’t even let me justify myself lmao. What is this, reddit?