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?
Where was this? Here? I feel like I would know that you were proposing public transportation as an alternative/solution to the massively inefficient system where every individual gets their own vehicle.
Reddit. And it was in reply to a commemt complaining about the cost of car parking too. So yeah I probably should have seen it coming. I was still genuinely surprised enough at the response to warrant this post.
Like, I was prepared for comments about “freedom” or “only poor people use public transit” but not for people to completely not understand why I hate cars.
Like I said in another post, I really need to stop engaging with these kinds of takes. That’s on me.
It’s very easy to get drawn in. I’m probably wrong about it most of the time because the bourgeoisie isn’t all powerful; but for the sake of my own mental health I assume that people I’m arguing with online are paid agents. Either state agents or agents for companies/industries. The effect is the same either way.
People who would die on the hill of e.g. individual modes of transport may as well be paid agents. And they won’t ever try to understand your point because they affiliate themselves with e.g. fossil capital like a Roman client to their patron.
It helps to see that there was never a clean break from feudalism to capitalism; an echo of those past relations is still with us. It helps (me) to see e.g. liberals as subservient to their overlord(s) in the same way as knights to their lords. It should be assumed that their loyalty to the ‘system’ and to the haute bourgeoisie isn’t questioned.
In a way the people you’re arguing with are all paid agents, if sometimes indirectly. Either as members of the bourgeoisie, labour aristocrats, or compraadors. They see it as their job to proselytise for capital. Any counter narrative or facts are heresies.
Not everyone is like this but once you realise the other person is like this, there’s almost zero point in getting worked up about them not understanding you or speaking in good faith; if they could, they would rather burn you at the stake to keep you quiet. It often feels like they do the online version of that, too, as they scorch any possibility of rational conversation with one of their many – intentional, if occasionally subconscious – tactics.