Moderator of /c/[email protected] /u/[email protected] deleted a comment solely because it expressed an opinion they disagreed with, despite multiple other commenters jumping in to say they felt the comment was appropriate, even if they disagreed with its contents.

https://lemmy.world/comment/18341906

Removed Comment Unpopular opinion maybe but they're right. Increasing density without also reducing dependence on car ownership just increases the vacancy rate or makes people leave the cars they need in places that make it everyone's problem. Increasing housing density always needs to be done in conjunction with improving infrastructure to support that increased density (improved walkability, mixed use properties, upgrading transit, bike lanes, whatever) or everyone loses. by osaerisxero @kbin.melroy.org reason: Rule 1, misinformation

Note that Rule 1 of the community doesn’t even mention anything about misinformation. and in fact explicitly encourages being civil when faced with opposing opinions:

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

  • InternetCitizen2English
    1·
    11 months ago

    the way government funding for non-car infrastructure (and especially transit) works requires the density to come first in order to justify the funding, or else the infrastructure never gets built.

    You got a source on that? I live in the Lone Star State (rating) and no matter how dense an area gets it will not be getting transit. Getting transit to be built as we expand is not only smooth, but ensures it is even getting done and not dropped later.

    And to be clear the comment that was deleted was in no way against the spirit of the community or nimby. So yeah you are doubling down on an L take. Pretty much everyone in the thread interpreted the statement similar to how I did. Take some self inventory about what you are trying to do and say.

    • grue
      11·
      11 months ago

      You got a source on that? I live in the Lone Star State (rating) and no matter how dense an area gets it will not be getting transit.

      Excuse me: I didn’t mean to imply that having density guaranteed getting transit funding; I meant that failing to have density guaranteed failing to get transit funding. Density is a necessary precondition, but not always sufficient.

      And to be clear the comment that was deleted was in no way against the spirit of the community or nimby.

      To be clear, the comment that was deleted was making a false statement of fact and using that to falsely support its other misconception. That’s damning by itself, regardless of the good intent the author might’ve had otherwise. I won’t allow such misinformation to stand and I can’t delete only part of a comment, so the whole thing had to go.

      More to the point, I don’t care how many people suffer the same misconception. Objective reality exists, facts are not a popularity contest, and I’m not going to tolerate BS just because other people think it feels truthy!

      • InternetCitizen2
        1·
        11 months ago

        Excuse me: I didn’t mean to imply that having density guaranteed getting transit funding; I meant that failing to have density guaranteed failing to get transit funding. Density is a necessary precondition, but not always sufficient.

        So you do understand there is nuance in these topics.

        To be clear, the comment that was deleted was making a false statement of fact and using that to falsely support its other misconception. That’s

        Or I guess your too childish too see past your pride.

        You know you haven’t brought the source I’ve asked for, nor a source that counters their statement outright. Likely you won’t because its ridiculous on something trivial.