Microblog Memes @lemmy.world BonesOfTheMoon @lemmy.world 1w ago

In the 1980s perfect strangers drove you places.

You're viewing a single thread.

95 comments

Hell, when I was a little boy in 2001, you could still accept a ride from strangers. I mean, sure, you could end up in the car with a wannabe John Wayne Gacy, but more often than not, it was a kind stranger offering a ride to a kid walking home in the 105 degree Texas heat.
- (If the US had adequate public transit/micromobility infrastructure, worrying about random strangers picking you up – let alone for intra-city travel – wouldn't be a thing.)
  
  Rural
  
  Urban areas account for 80% of the US population. This only fell from 80.7% in 2010, despite the fact that the minimum population for something to be considered "urban" doubled from 2500 residents to 5000 (under the previous criteria, this would have been an increase). That's not to mention that there's nothing stopping rural towns under 5000 people from having adequate micromobility infrastructure, like I mentioned. If your kid is walking home from somewhere, unless they legitimately got stranded somehow in bumfuck nowhere, chances are they're within biking distance.
  
  The kind of "rural" you're probably thinking of where someone lives two miles out into the country is basically a rounding error. Please stop using it as a magical incantation to shut down discussion of reasonable public transit and safe and efficient micromobility.
  
  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?
  
  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.
- I'd argue that's still the case, and always has been, and likely always will be. I don't think there's a larger number of evil people intent on harming hitchhikers, just that it is a dangerous habit and the cases that end violently are the only ones that make the news. It's more that we're better educated about it now, and so less people are willing to hitch or pick up hitchhikers now
  
  Are we better educated if it's almost always safe?

95 comments