So I made a passing comment of “it’s almost like private car ownership is a really inefficient use of space and resources” the other day, which I didn’t really pay much mind to. But all the replies were either explaining the concept of public transportation as if I don’t know that’s the solution to private car dependence (not in a constructive way adding to my comment or anything, I got the sense that they were trying to explain the concept to me) and someone even basically said “well I’m sure you think urban sprawl is an efficient use of space then.”
Are the “normies” this oblivious to how anti-car sentiments work? Do they think we’re against the concept of a metal thing with four wheels and not its effects on urban development and society? Why the hell would I be against public transit or pro urban sprawl if I hate cars? Cities before cars were invented had public transit and were tightly packed and walkable. You don’t think I support that?
Sounds like you’re trying to extrapolate too much from an isolated incident. You know full well that this isn’t the mindset of most car owners, you’re just “asking questions” like everyone’s favorite ex-host.
I expect that my opinion isn’t going to popular here but as someone who wants to get involved but is completely put off by the community, I’ll dig my grave further:
This sort of thing, along with the edgy 90s teen marketing name, is part of why this movement hasn’t gained as much traction as it should have. The holier-than-thou attitude that’s prevalent here is awful, fuckcars is the antiwork of infrastructure.
“Fuckcars” is one of the worst names you could have for promoting people-centric infrastructure development. All publicity is good publicity I guess, but the name is divisive as hell and makes the movement (WHICH I AGREE WITH) look like it’s run by a bunch of kids who aren’t even old enough to drive.