reddit General

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

I don't know, her butt not being covered in centipedes seems like a good standard.

 

[Ruin]

Just took a look and it’s about 60/40 “THE AUTHOR MENTIONED BREASTS” and “HUEHUE MEN WRITE LIKE DIS” parody.

View attachment 3243203

View attachment 3243204

The second one is actually kinda funny but I'll be the author is lolfat.

 

[Tealeaf]

R/Fuckcars is mostly backlash about people not being able to afford nice urban homes. You can’t afford nice urban places because it’s either outright illegal to build (because it causes traffic problems) or it’s obscenely expensive to build (because of obscenely expensive parking structures). Plus, urban areas that are inundated with cars have a hard time being nice, because cars are so noisy and dangerous. So the solution that makes everyone happy would be to simply not insist on building such places full of cars and do something nice and inexpensive.

While also building more places where you can easily drive cars. Both kinds of places can co-exist. Just pick what you like. Or something in the middle. No reason not to have something for everyone. Everyone can win here.

Except it for some reason I cannot understand makes many car-driving people foaming mad. Sure, a place where cars aren’t accommodated is hard to drive in. Just literally don’t drive there. You have the freedom to do so. For being so freedom-minded, they’re not so fond of giving others the freedom from cars.

 

[KingFrampt]

Github took down camas' reddit search tool but it's archived

Archived page: https://web.archive.org/web/20220409153955/https://camas.github.io/reddit-search/

Archived repo: https://web.archive.org/web/20220321160109/https://github.com/camas/reddit-search/tree/master/src

Attached the source code too

Edit: Deployed a working copy here - https://marsey-search.vercel.app/

Anyone know the reason?

 

[quaawaa]

R/Fuckcars is mostly backlash about people not being able to afford nice urban homes. You can’t afford nice urban places because it’s either outright illegal to build (because it causes traffic problems) or it’s obscenely expensive to build (because of obscenely expensive parking structures). Plus, urban areas that are inundated with cars have a hard time being nice, because cars are so noisy and dangerous. So the solution that makes everyone happy would be to simply not insist on building such places full of cars and do something nice and inexpensive.

While also building more places where you can easily drive cars. Both kinds of places can co-exist. Just pick what you like. Or something in the middle. No reason not to have something for everyone. Everyone can win here.

Except it for some reason I cannot understand makes many car-driving people foaming mad. Sure, a place where cars aren’t accommodated is hard to drive in. Just literally don’t drive there. You have the freedom to do so. For being so freedom-minded, they’re not so fond of giving others the freedom from cars.

Because those policies are never just let us build what we want; it is always only build what we want. Every single city where urbanists have taken control has enacted policies like mandatory parking maximums, raising taxes on cars and gas, banning the construction of new suburbs with urban growth boundaries (the main reason besides immigration for the rise of housing prices), removal of infrastructure in order to make driving slow, etc.

If urbanists just wanted to have a car free neighborhood no one would care. In fact, they could do that right now by buying some unincorporated land near a city and building whatever they want on it. They don’t, because the actual goal is to force everyone into their preferred lifestyle.

 

[chiobu]

Anyone know the reason?

I don't know but there's some speculation on a r/pushshift thread

https://old.reddit.com/r/pushshift/comments/ugtz37/camas_redditsearch_has_been_disabled_by_github/ (A)

 

[JambledUpWords]

Just a bunch of Reddit takes on abortion

Spoiler: r/politics

Spoiler: r/PoliticalHumor

Spoiler: r/MtF

Spoiler: r/asktransgender

 

[Tealeaf]

They don’t, because the actual goal is to force everyone into their preferred lifestyle.

That's such an absurd fear. If all we built from today was car-free, nice urban stuff, it would take decades just to make enough for people who genuinely prefer that. The ratio of new construction compared to existing neighbourhoods and overall housing stock is very small.

Forcing everyone is just not possible even if someone actually no-cap wanted that. I admire your optimism, though.

 

[DumbDude42]

Because those policies are never just let us build what we want; it is always only build what we want. Every single city where urbanists have taken control has enacted policies like mandatory parking maximums, raising taxes on cars and gas, banning the construction of new suburbs with urban growth boundaries (the main reason besides immigration for the rise of housing prices), removal of infrastructure in order to make driving slow, etc.

If urbanists just wanted to a car free neighborhood no one would care. In fact, they could do that right now by buying some unincorporated land near a city and building whatever they want on it. They don’t, because the actual goal is to force everyone into their preferred lifestyle.

anti-car communities have several problems.
if you make some car-unfriendly area for people who dislike cars, they quickly find out that going to work or buying groceries on foot sucks major ass, especially during bad weather.
what is the anti car solution to that? public transport of course. but then they have the problem that everybody else prefers using cars so demand for public transport is too low for it to be viable.
the only 'solution' to this is to make cars suck so much that everybody else is forced to use shitty public transport too, then demand will be high enough to justify the investment and operation of an extensive bus network.

and then you have more urban problems feeding into the situation. your city has a diversity problem, that makes public transport double unappealing. your city has a homeless problem, now public transport is triple unappealing. so to get people to use it in spite of all this shit, they have to make cars super duper giga dogshit, or outright ban them from important locations, so that's what they're pushing for in the long term.

 

[Gay Mouth]

Just a bunch of Reddit takes on abortion

Spoiler: r/politics

View attachment 3243896View attachment 3243895View attachment 3243897View attachment 3243898View attachment 3243899View attachment 3243900View attachment 3243902View attachment 3243903View attachment 3243904View attachment 3243905View attachment 3243906View attachment 3243907View attachment 3243908View attachment 3243909

Spoiler: r/PoliticalHumor

View attachment 3243911View attachment 3243912View attachment 3243914View attachment 3243915View attachment 3243916View attachment 3243917View attachment 3243918

Spoiler: r/MtF

View attachment 3243921View attachment 3243922View attachment 3243924View attachment 3243925

Spoiler: r/asktransgender

View attachment 3243928View attachment 3243929View attachment 3243930View attachment 3243931View attachment 3243932View attachment 3243933View attachment 3243934

 

[PointOfNoReturnPoint]

Every fuckcars person is always the same 2 types of people:

- People with sour grapes about not having enough money to afford even the most basic shitbox of a car

- People bitter about being too wracked with anxiety to ever be trusted to drive anything anywhere at any speed, and are too pussyshit to drive defensively and secretly hate themselves for being such a massive pussy about everything all the time

It's usually never anything else. Regardless of the topic.

 

[BSC]

You're welcome, Mr. Redditor.

 

[quaawaa]

That's such an absurd fear. If all we built from today was car-free, nice urban stuff, it would take decades just to make enough for people who genuinely prefer that. The ratio of new construction compared to existing neighbourhoods and overall housing stock is very small.

Forcing everyone is just not possible even if someone actually no-cap wanted that. I admire your optimism, though.

Why isn’t it possible? If you ban new houses and remove road capacity while increasing immigration, you will increase the price of housing and you will increase congestion. The result is young people being unable to afford houses and existing residents having their quality of life degraded. These are real effects that are handwaved away by anti-car urbanists who blindly insist that density and transit are the solutions for all ills, despite people wanting to live in houses and dense transit dependent cities like Berlin have major housing crises while low density car dependent cities like Dallas are affordable despite growing more in recent years.

 

[JambledUpWords]

 

[Parce Que]

I, for one, eagerly await for r/fuckcars' tranny janny to humiliate their movement on national news

 

[SheerHeartAttack]

I, for one, eagerly await for r/fuckcars' tranny janny to humiliate their movement on national news

I can see it now. The greasy zoomer caked in make up appears on Fox News to epically own the suburb living, car worshipping chuds.
"Being slow.. is a virtue"

 

[Tealeaf]

Why isn’t it possible?

I already said why it's not possible, but I'll make it even simpler for you.

If there is no hope of building enough of the good stuff for the people who positively, genuinely, enthusiastically like it, there is absolutely no way you're building many times more of the good stuff to drag along people who don't like it.

It's just not a thing. It cannot be a thing without so many unlikely things changing significantly for the better. It's ultra optimistic.

I fucking wish urbanism was as all-powerful as you say it is, then maybe it would get something done for once. Like building an entire second Berlin in Berlin to meet and exceed the demand for Berlin. (And prepare for a third, fourth one etc. in case demand was initially underestimated)

Meanwhile, those heroes of low-density houses will sprawl out forever ...until they meet their physical limits of commute time, leading to obscenely long commutes and unaffordable housing as there is no more room for decently located houses to be built. Dallas average housing prices went up +20% year over year compared to 2021.

 

[quaawaa]

I already said why it's not possible, but I'll make it even simpler for you.

If there is no hope of building enough of the good stuff for the people who positively, genuinely, enthusiastically like it, there is absolutely no way you're building many times more of the good stuff to drag along people who don't like it.

It's just not a thing. It cannot be a thing without so many unlikely things changing significantly for the better. It's ultra optimistic.

I'll make it even simpler for you. Urbanist policies, like all leftist utopian plans, don't have to successfully accomplish their goals in order to ruin people's lives. Millions of walkable apartments don't have to be built before urbanist policies start having real effects; their effect on housing prices and congestion are felt immediately. Just because your utopia hasn't come to fruition doesn't mean that you haven't wrecked millions of people's standard of living in pursuit of it.

I fucking wish urbanism was as all-powerful as you say it is, then maybe it would get something done for once. Like building an entire second Berlin in Berlin to meet and exceed the demand for Berlin. (And prepare for a third, fourth one etc. in case demand was initially underestimated)

That's illegal thanks to urban growth boundaries to "protect the environment", which is something that you support:

Meanwhile, those heroes of low-density houses will sprawl out forever ...until they meet their physical limits of commute time, leading to obscenely long commutes and unaffordable housing as there is no more room for decently located houses to be built.

Since commercial real estate sprawls as well, commute time isn't a limiting factor for city size. We are nowhere close to consuming all available land except for in a handful of areas surrounded by oceans or mountains. Why restrict building and cause the price of housing to rise now just because you personally dislike cars and sprawl?

Dallas average housing prices went up +20% year over year compared to 2021.

Try not using covid numbers. Housing prices in Texas and other free states went up a ton in the last year because they had far more immigration than normal due to people fleeing draconian lockdown states. Their housing prices will stabilize or fall as the construction industry deals with their unexcepted demand spike. They also don't have a multi year waiting list for apartments like many European cities do.

 

[Lester Jones]

If you guys want to argue against pro-murder, you guys should check out /r/abortiondebate.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/

The Pro-murder supporters are salty as fuck lmfao

 

[FarmVille]

Except it for some reason I cannot understand makes many car-driving people foaming mad. Sure, a place where cars aren’t accommodated is hard to drive in. Just literally don’t drive there. You have the freedom to do so. For being so freedom-minded, they’re not so fond of giving others the freedom from cars.

I assume all the farmers having autist attacks over fuckcars must live in cousinfucking bumpkin nowhere because commuting in urban areas via car sucks.

Better transit options so people arenot sitting bumper to bumper for over an hour in traffic is not going to threaten your way of life in flyover land, boys—so calm down.

If you guys want to argue against pro-murder, you guys should check out /r/abortiondebate.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/
The Pro-murder supporters are salty as fuck lmfao

Being pro murder the only thing I need to end the debate is a link to any thread in the Autistic Thunderdrome. Free abortions on demand for all.