You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Not Just Bikes / r/fuckcars / Urbanists / New Urbanism / Car-Free / Anti-Car - People and grifters who hate personal transport, freedom, cars, roads, suburbs, and are obsessed with city planning and urban design
As I had been told it was the "lots of driveways/stops but still relatively high speed/wide" which made sense on some level, but then I looked at the original Strong Towns video and according to him, there should literally be no middle ground between grade-separated highways and narrow streets. Under that definition, Champs-Elysees in Paris (not in North America and definitely pre-dating 1950) is a stroad, as are the roads in Amsterdam. Yet somehow they got it into Wikipedia (of course, given the woke paragon that rules the roost these days) that creates its own definition based on this loose set of boundaries.
But then again, who's going to point it out? Try to say that there's an inconsistency and you'll get blocked or downvoted.
NotJustBikes and his ilk are beyond cringe. While they have some good points in stroads being hot garbage, the all encompassing, uncompromising smugly superior worldview reminds me all too much of vegans. Then there's the creeping socialist/communist angle that seeps into the margins when you ask them "so what do you want, then?".
Communal travel, communal living, communal standards for what each individual needs or should expect out of life, decided by unelected technocrats who'll determine what is in the common good, while personally not subject to the limitations they'd impose on the masses because they have important things to do.
It wouldn't be quite so irritating if they werent so aggressively ignorant. Anyone with a bit of driving experience on either side of the Atlantic will quickly discover that driving the speed limit is liable to cause accidents as much as excessive speeding does itself, it is entirely situational when you can tack on 10/20% speed and Tesla is no more than sensible to make allowances for it.
I don't have to belabor the point for those who know what they're talking about, NJB is just another example of some wannabe technocrat with a head full of "good ideas" that he'll try to push through for the greater good, even if he has to lie or fuck people over to make it happen.
Its been said a few times, but the fuckcars mentality and socialism seem to go hand in hand. Rules for thee and not for me and all that. Even when you give them their bike lanes and trains they always want more; autisticly obsessed with train and bus schedules because obviously a centralized system is best, right guys? They don't seem to understand that most people don't want to live in the IRL equivalent of the Warhammer 40k hive city, stacked on top of each other in decaying towers full of crime.
As I had been told it was the "lots of driveways/stops but still relatively high speed/wide" which made sense on some level, but then I looked at the original Strong Towns video and according to him, there should literally be no middle ground between grade-separated highways and narrow streets. Under that definition, Champs-Elysees in Paris (not in North America and definitely pre-dating 1950) is a stroad, as are the roads in Amsterdam. Yet somehow they got it into Wikipedia (of course, given the woke paragon that rules the roost these days) that creates its own definition based on this loose set of boundaries.
But then again, who's going to point it out? Try to say that there's an inconsistency and you'll get blocked or downvoted.
Well you see, chud, the champs-elysee was made before cars existed and muh heckin trees. Checkmate carbrains.
Curious how their go-tos are all European cities and they also frantically try to explain away or just ignore Euro stroads etc until one of them spaces out over....idk we need a term for Paris Syndrome but specifically for muh walkable euro paradise
That’s true, but “15 minute city” advocates never count the time it takes to get out of/back into a multi-story building, which also can be several minutes, especially if an elevator is required.
When I biked to work I could almost beat the car if I biked flat out. The problem is if I did that I had to shower when I got to the office so any time savings didn't exist. Most of the time I took a longer route for the exercise and knew I was going to need a shower anyway.
The only time I beat the car was the day there was a power outage near the office and all the traffic lights were out. Probably saved 45 minutes on the 15 minute commute home. Would have been faster to walk home if I had driven that day.
Its been said a few times, but the fuckcars mentality and socialism seem to go hand in hand. Rules for thee and not for me and all that. Even when you give them their bike lanes and trains they always want more; autisticly obsessed with train and bus schedules because obviously a centralized system is best, right guys? They don't seem to understand that most people don't want to live in the IRL equivalent of the Warhammer 40k hive city, stacked on top of each other in decaying towers full of crime.
They don't want that either, for them urbanism looks like a quaint, quiet backstreet in a fashionable part of the city, close to downtown but not so close they have to smell the piss being hosed off the sidewalk every morning before they head to the office.
NJB makes a comfortable living so of course he's over the moon on how well things work for him in Holland. He doesn't have to live in the crime riddled projects from where he'd have to spend 45 minutes both ways to get across town. This is in a tiny podunk european city mind you, nevermind the massive metro areas all these fuckers cant stop cooming over.
Its pathological. They try to create "livable cities" by eschewing and demonizing small communities, ignoring the blindly obvious truth that people need space and privacy, to breathe and flex and that if you try to push millions of people into a small footprint you get conflict and stress, before you even introduce "diversity" in the mix.
I'm dodging moai heads here but it reminds me how these fuckers will obstruct any kind of structural solutions to issues concerning """crime""" and substance abuse under the flag of harm reduction, watch their cities descend into something suited to Dredd then pull up stakes and take a tech job in some other city, only to pull that shit again.
The "fight" seems more important to them than a solution could ever be, its almost, almost as if "doing good" or "being better" is the whole point, rather than a means to an end.
I've noticed that NJB's Mastodon instance is sometimes slow and taking a while to load, just more proof Mastodon is far more unstable despite all the doomposting about twitter.
Anyway, he boosted this:
This is just funny to me because it's not as if the Dutch are the only ones with non-car-dependent cities. You'd have to be such a Dutchaboo and so blind to the rest of the world for this toot to make any sense. Not to mention "tired of being all in on that one country" as if the Randstad is the entirety of the Netherlands.
That photo is taken from Union Station and is of the intersection between York St, University Ave, and Front Street W.
Front St is only a single lane wide excluding the taxi lanes: View attachment 4156995
I’ve circled where he took the photo from. He was on the gasp pedestrian bridge.
York St is one way and only has two lanes: View attachment 4157043
University Ave has more than two lanes, but it has a subway line running beneath it and turns into a boulevard with memorials and parks in the median: View attachment 4157085
Toronto is indistinguishable from Breezewood!
He’s holding Toronto to an impossible standard and once again, the word “stroad” is revealed to have nothing to do with strip malls or parking lots. It literally just means a road with more than two lanes. NJB is anti-car, not pro-transit or pro-bike, and definitely not pro-human.
On a related note, Toronto urbanists constantly complain about the Gardiner Expressway ”cutting off” access to the waterfront, but they never mention the rail lines which do the same thing and are wider: View attachment 4157061
As I had been told it was the "lots of driveways/stops but still relatively high speed/wide" which made sense on some level, but then I looked at the original Strong Towns video and according to him, there should literally be no middle ground between grade-separated highways and narrow streets. Under that definition, Champs-Elysees in Paris (not in North America and definitely pre-dating 1950) is a stroad, as are the roads in Amsterdam. Yet somehow they got it into Wikipedia (of course, given the woke paragon that rules the roost these days) that creates its own definition based on this loose set of boundaries.
But then again, who's going to point it out? Try to say that there's an inconsistency and you'll get blocked or downvoted.
At this point I'm fully convinced a "stroad" is just any road or street and urbanist doesn't like, which is essentially most of them except for the ones in the Netherlands.
/r/notjustbikes is mad at /r/fuckcars for making them look bad:
Jason’s response:
He apparently has moved on from ”fuck all cars” and now drives sometimes. What happened? Did the image of Amsterdam he created in his mind not match the reality of living there? In a few years, is he going to post a picture of a pickup truck parked on his suburban single-family house’s driveway?
/r/fuckcars, at worst, only contains “mild attacks” on drivers and suburbanites:
A /r/notjustbikes user was downvoted on /r/fuckcars for promoting a view on how to make car traffic safer until they revealed that it was Dutch government’s idea:
Parroting Chuck’s take that traffic engineers are murderers: Most of the comments agree with OP and Jason, but some don’t:
One of Jason’s OG supporters got downvoted for criticizing commieblocks: Source(Archive)
>I love this sub and Jason’s channel because it comes from a reasonable place and doesn’t antagonize people just for driving a car.
Considering that Jason freely admits he is intentionally abrasive and insulting in his videos to stop "willfully ignorant suburbanites" from watching I sincerely doubt he "doesn't antagonize people just for driving a car".
>It’s kind of like anti work and work reform.
I wonder if this guy knows what happened to r/antiwork
Jason’s response: View attachment 4158342
He apparently has moved on from ”fuck all cars” and now drives sometimes. What happened? Did the image of Amsterdam he created in his mind not match the reality of living there? In a few years, is he going to post a picture of a pickup truck parked on his suburban single-family house’s driveway?
>I've done a lot of reading recently about what happened with the online "atheism" space, in the hopes of avoiding some of their pitfalls, especially how it morphed into the "intellectual dark web" that was basically a far-right movement cloaked in intellectualism.
No mention of the failure of Atheism Plus? I'm not surprised since he's clearly a left-winger.
>If I were Richard Dawkins back at the beginning of that movement online, what would I have done differently?
It's very simple, you be less abrasive and understand why people might not be on board with your proposals. And not in a "they're just evil carbrains" way or "they just don't know Europe exists!", no, in an actual "go actually talk to them and ask them why" way. And be willing to compromise on your proposals. But we know neither you nor Charles Marohn nor any other urbanist is willing to do that, that's why I created this thread.
r/fuckcars at worst contains condoning and advocacy of straight up vandalism and property damage (which would be called "stochastic terrorism" if done by other people, but double standards), it's all documented in this thread.
A /r/notjustbikes user was downvoted on /r/fuckcars for promoting a view on how to make car traffic safer until they revealed that it was Dutch government’s idea: View attachment 4158393
I couldn't find what idea he was discussing on r/fuckcars but judging from his posting history u/Corneetjeuh seems to be an actual Dutch-speaking person living in the Netherlands. It's hilarious how these people are so Dutch-centric they'll only accept an idea if told it came from the Dutch. It's like the speech that lefties cheered on that consisted entirely of fragments of Hitler's speeches, but they accepted it because they were told it came from someone else.
>they arent being built because of the profit incentive smh
Profit incentive? How isn't there not a profit incentive in the other direction to build highly dense cheap housing that can fit the maximum number of tenants (i.e. revenue stream) possible?
I couldn't find what idea he was discussing on r/fuckcars but judging from his posting history u/Corneetjeuh seems to be an actual Dutch-speaking person living in the Netherlands.
Considering that Jason freely admits he is intentionally abrasive and insulting in his videos to stop "willfully ignorant suburbanites" from watching I sincerely doubt he "doesn't antagonize people just for driving a car".
This is what gets me so much with YIMBY/New Urbanism types and it's a problem that's ubiquitous across all of these progressive spaces and movements. "Carbrain" as a word is functionally the same thing as "lumpenproletariat", where both are words used to describe what they see as an unenlightened quasi-underclass. It's this idea of bullying people into agreeing with you, it reeks of authoritarianism, another connection between /r/fuckcars types and socialism.
I think Alan Fisher really embodies this most, he's supposedly a Soviet apologist (even if he isn't, he has stated that he is a socialist in his videos) and tends to have a very, very smug holier-than-thou attitude in a lot of his videos - I swear to God you can *hear* him sneering sometimes.
They just can't help themselves from relentlessly shitting on the very people they think they're trying to help, resulting in people souring towards the movements and their ideas, thus hindering them from spreading, which creates a vicious cycle. It isn't just YIMBYs/New Urbanist types that are like this too, once you notice how prevalent it is among liberals and leftists, you'll never un-notice it.
Gonna expose myself a bit here. This is coming from someone who supports public transportation (it's how I've gotten to and from school most of my life) and improving the quality of rail transit, walkability (this especially includes dealing with crime, homelessness, and safety, which is something liberals are allergic to), and less restrictive/shitty zoning laws. I know this *technically* makes me a YIMBY but the movement has become so sanctimonious that I don't want to attach myself to that label and the people associated with it.
/r/fuckcars people's view of the Netherlands' lack of cars is about as realistic as the average weeb's view that Japan is a wonderland of anime and nerdy shit. Most are breadtube types that live in some American burb, see NJB and think their lives are magically happier if they lived in a city where there's no cars, like wonderful Amsterdam!
Just got to pretend most of the country outside of Amsterdam owns cars, that's all.
"You will live in the bug hive and you will like it. How dare you insist otherwise."
Reminds me of the comments of that Adam Something video where half were people from former commie countries talking about how shit commieblocks were. Paper thin walls, bad insulation, little space. It's pretty easy to claim the opposite when you haven't lived in one yourself.
Gonna expose myself a bit here. This is coming from someone who supports public transportation (it's how I've gotten to and from school most of my life) and improving the quality of rail transit, walkability (this especially includes dealing with crime, homelessness, and safety, which is something liberals are allergic to), and less restrictive/shitty zoning laws. I know this *technically* makes me a YIMBY but the movement has become so sanctimonious that I don't want to attach myself to that label and the people associated with it.
Nothing wrong with that. It's not as if /r/fuckcars being full of smug lefty cunts suddenly means all means of transport besides cars are bad. It's just that you have a conscience and can detect when people go full retard.
Real talk, most people like cars. Most people also support good public transport options (see: not filled with crackheads and thugs who chimp out the second you look at them funny). No amount of douchey breadtube smugness will change that.
As I had been told it was the "lots of driveways/stops but still relatively high speed/wide" which made sense on some level, but then I looked at the original Strong Towns video and according to him, there should literally be no middle ground between grade-separated highways and narrow streets.
The first time njb discussed the concept of the stroad in one of his videos, he had a very specific definition. A large, multi-lane road, built close to highway standards, with large signage that can be interpreted from long distances and at high speeds, but with lots of turn-offs and business or residences opening directly onto the road rather than onto side roads.
The unpredictable, low-speed interactions with roadside infrastructure combine dangerously with the high-speed street design and signage, potentially leading to more accidents and worse traffic conditions. IIRC, one of the solutions he presented at the time was to separate the high speed road from the low-speed infrastructure, by having parallel, slow lanes, divided from the main road by a median, with just a few entrances to the high-speed road.
He (and strong towns) subsequently allowed the definition to get more and more mushy, to fit his need to treat every road he didn't like as a stroad.
As I had been told it was the "lots of driveways/stops but still relatively high speed/wide" which made sense on some level, but then I looked at the original Strong Towns video and according to him, there should literally be no middle ground between grade-separated highways and narrow streets. Under that definition, Champs-Elysees in Paris (not in North America and definitely pre-dating 1950) is a stroad, as are the roads in Amsterdam. Yet somehow they got it into Wikipedia (of course, given the woke paragon that rules the roost these days) that creates its own definition based on this loose set of boundaries.
But then again, who's going to point it out? Try to say that there's an inconsistency and you'll get blocked or downvoted.
Their entire "stroad" concept just shows how little they understand the road system. The faster the speed of the road, and the more lanes, the fewer access points it should have. There is a sliding scale between irregularly shaped, sometimes single lane unidirectional residential roads and urban arterials that should not have any intersections for ~10 miles or so, enabling traffic to move large distances. A "stroad" is just a road that has too many access points for the speed/throughput it's designed for. In other words, it's an urban arterial where they fucked up.
But since these soyboys hate cars, they don't just dunk on the incompetent urban planners who fucked up and let people have direct access to a major urban arterial. That would require them admitting that our current crop of urban planners are a bunch of incompetent idiots, as well as forcing them to admit that a well designed road system is entirely possible, and desirable. Instead they'll just pretend that we should build tiny little streets directly off the highway with 30kmph speed limits. Oh and also that street and road are not interchangeable terms.
Maybe I don't read enough of these people but why are they always talking about the Soviet style high density housing of old (and shit) and not the modern examples found in East Asia? I live in such a building and overall it is nice, I don't hear my neighbors and they don't hear me and I am within walking distance of most things I need (including a Costco) is it because these style apartments are built for profit?
Maybe I don't read enough of these people but why are they always talking about the Soviet style high density housing of old (and shit) and not the modern examples found in East Asia? I live in such a building and overall it is nice, I don't hear my neighbors and they don't hear me and I am within walking distance of most things I need (including a Costco) is it because these style apartments are built for profit?
I think there are two issues. One is that these fellas are mainly responding to the kneejerk reaction of "those are commie blocks and thus bad", so they talk about how commie blocks were actually good, instead of how the principle of commie blocks was good, and can give very nice living situations with modern technology.
Second is that modern developments, due to rising costs everywhere, are expensive and even designated affordable sections are not really affordable to the lowest classes, so modern developments and renovations of old buildings are seen as gentrification. This breeds a certain nostalgia for actual commie blocks, because those were affordable to everyone, or so they think.
NJB / Jason is referring to a feature on Tesla's that allow a person to set the speed to go above the speed limit up to 30%. As such, for a highway that is 65 MPH you can go up to 84.5 MPH. The reason why this is a feature is two fold. One is because cars usually exceed the speed limit by around 10%-20%. The second is due to the first reason and the possibility that a full self drive would need to make lane changes so that one could take the correct interchange. Imagine if cars were going 72 MPH on the highway on their way to an interchange. If an interchange was on the left, a Tesla locked in at 65 MPH would need all other cars to slow down to safely merge in to take the correct destination.
As I had been told it was the "lots of driveways/stops but still relatively high speed/wide" which made sense on some level, but then I looked at the original Strong Towns video and according to him, there should literally be no middle ground between grade-separated highways and narrow streets. Under that definition, Champs-Elysees in Paris (not in North America and definitely pre-dating 1950) is a stroad, as are the roads in Amsterdam. Yet somehow they got it into Wikipedia (of course, given the woke paragon that rules the roost these days) that creates its own definition based on this loose set of boundaries.
But then again, who's going to point it out? Try to say that there's an inconsistency and you'll get blocked or downvoted.
The link to Wikipedia references the difference between roads infrastructure in the Netherlands vs the Canada / US.
I have never been to the Netherlands but I would assume that it being a civilization where its urban centers were established when castles were still in vogue could have something to do with why we are different. Below we see vastly different population density for the Netherlands vs. the US / Canada. I am not going to shit on the Netherlands for its high population density compared to the US. They have developed a culture that reflects that in the way they live. As an American, we have our own culture.
d enough of these people but why are they always talking about the Soviet style high density housing of old (and shit) and not the modern examples found in East Asia? I live in such a building and overall it is nice, I don't hear my neighbors and they don't hear me and I am within walking distance of most things I need (including
everywhere, are expensive and even designated affordable sections are not really affordable to the lowest classes, so modern developments and renovations of old buildings are seen as gentrification. This breeds a certain nostalgia for actual commie blocks, because th
When talking about an issue, I think its important to define terms so we know what we are talking about. Again, I am an American so I can only reference what I find online but it seems that their are three types of commie bloc apartments.
In the first years of the Soviet period, people flocked to the cities at an astoundingly high rate. At the same time, they did away with private ownership and personal space as it was considered anti-soviet.
The government allocated 9 square meters of living space to each person. They also turned private housing into communal apartments (called kommunalki), where one family had one room, and everyone shared the kitchen and bathroom.
Building Russian pre-revolutionary apartments weren’t sufficient to house the massive influx of people to the cities during the early Soviet years.
Apartment blocks built during Stalin’s reign, from the 1930s to 1950s, are known as “stalinka.” Some apartments were communal and for ordinary people. In contrast, others contained individual homes for the nomenklatura (political, cultural, and scientific elite), and these Russian apartments were – and still are – prestigious and desirable.
While the Soviet elite lived well, most people did not. Communal apartments neglected their basic need for privacy and space, and there was a severe housing shortage after wartime destruction. Nikita Khrushchev began mass production of prefabricated apartment blocks to mitigate the housing crisis. They were known as khrushchevka apartments and were built from the mid-1950s onwards. Thirteen thousand identical khrushchevka were rolled out everywhere, from the suburbs of Moscow to the villages of the Far East. For the first time, ordinary Soviet families could have apartments to themselves.
These Russian apartments are cheap but small, with low ceilings, thin walls, one-bedroom, and tiny kitchens. Most buildings have five floors, the maximum number permitted by law without an elevator. Since khrushchevka apartments were budget accommodation, residents got 9 square meters of living space and no more.
Most khrushchevka apartments were built in less than two weeks and only intended to last 25 years. However, the majority still stand and aren’t always in the best shape.
Khrushchevka gave Soviet citizens their first taste of private life, but they lacked in many ways. The next apartment block stage came under Leonid Brezhnev in the 1970s and 1980s. Known as brezhnevka apartments, they were an improved version of single-family apartments.
Although brezhnevka apartments are slightly better quality than their predecessors, the no-frills aesthetic remains the same. Most are constructed from prefabricated concrete panels and often look quite run-down, even if the district is well-kept.
So now that we have an understanding on what we are discussing we can continue with the analysis.
It seems that when discussing Commie Bloc apartments the general consensus is that we are talking about Brezhnevka. Now, when someone says they enjoy this specific type of commie housing, lets look into the conditions of this type of housing. This is critically important because housing was assigned in the Soviet Union.
The size of the kitchen in the apartment of seven to nine square meters, far below the ceiling "Stalin", number of rooms may be from one to five. The total area of 20 to 80 square meters.
Now we see that the brezhnevka apartments had different sizes with a different number of rooms, which probably existed to account for people of differing family sizes. In my analysis, I will be generous and say that a single person can live in one of these apartments, As a single person, they would likely be assigned the smallest of the size ranges, a 20 meter or 65.5 215 square foot apartment.
Assigned apartments for an unmarried and childless NJB / r/fuckcars user.
Looking at the above video, I does not appear to be a very comfortable life for most people. Even if one has a family, the data I have indicates that in most of the brezhnevka apartments the largest average unit is 265 895 square feet or 80 square meters. I don't know the exact criteria to be assigned to such a space but perhaps it a family of five. That is 179 square feet per person or 16 square meters. I don't know about you but for me that would be very challenging to live in.
But is this what Adam Something / redditors are referring to when they mention the current supply of commie block housing?
Are the persons talking about a Brezhnevka apartment being nice referring to the original structure?
I don't believe so. I believe that these people are referring to Brezhnevka apartments that were renovated for a capitalist purpose. As evidence, I provide a renovated Brezhnevka apartment.
The height and design seems to match what would be classified as a Brezhnevka accommodation however two details do stand out to me. One is the size at 592 square feet and the second is that the apartment is a one bedroom.
Based on this data and the earlier size range we can see that an apartment in urban Russia only about 15 years after Brezhnevka were built was about 45.6 square meters or 484 square feet per person. Comparing this to the apartment in the listing for one person at 592 square feet and we can see that that accommodation is over 100 feet larger. When one further studies the housing space per person chart we see the closest we come to the renovated commie block apartment is if a family of four is living there.
As demonstrated by evidence, we see that the 592 square foot apartment is unusually large for a two person household. In fact, I think the data would support that when these apartments were renovated, they were made larger to accommodate the tastes of a people under capitalism. I cannot assume the quality of life for these capitalist apartments but I do know that they are not traditional commie block apartments that were praised. An additional aspect that I want to address in Brezhnevka apartments is the building material, concrete. In terms of strength, I think that concrete is a great building material. It has been cited on in the various locations and on Kiwifarms that these apartments are incredibly resilient often surviving combat damage. However, this building material is dependent based on the climate in the region and the environment impact.
My first concern the effect that concrete can have on the temperatures outside of the structure, which is named the heat island effect. If we were to transplant the Soviet commie block apartments to a Southern U.S. city we could see temperature increases of 14F compared to suburbs or 21 degrees compared to rural areas, with concrete being a significant factor.
Mitigation methods are possible but in much of the regions that face the hottest temperatures these measures consisting mainly of greenery is met with drought conditions. Non-greenery proposals of desert gardens but they don't off the same temperature reduction as trees or grass. Such, while these concrete constructions may work for urban centers in Russia, careful study should be done before comparing them to cities in warmer regions.
The second concern that I have regarding using concrete as a building material is the carbon footprint and sustainability. Looking at a couple studies we see concerns about not only what it takes to produce concrete but its effect on the environment.
Looking around, you can argue that the most commonly used building materials in construction today consists of concrete and steel. Unlike wood however, concrete is made through unsustainable practices.Wood can be torn down to be reused, but concrete cannot be salvaged and it is left where it is demolished. Steel is the newest of the three materials. Steel became a popular building material during the industrial revolution due to its durability. During this time, most people began switching from building with wood to steel. With society’s current knowledge, we know that wood is the best option in terms of sustainability. The progression of concrete and steel may not lead down the most sustainable path.
With "the science" concrete is not a good choice for those with ecological concerns, we look at wood. While it has the least effect on the environment, their are limitations on its use in construction with the main issue being strength. The lower strength of wood frame construction limits buildings to 85 feet tall or between 5 / 6 stories. This height restriction greatly diminishes Brezhnevka type housing if a primary concern is ecology and combined with the urban heat island effect eliminates it as the ideal choice for many parts of the world.
In conclusion what is my main objection to the NJB / r/fuckcars people? Its that they don't know shit but they present themselves as better than everyone else, especially carbrains, then they fucking vote. These people watch a slick video and take that as gospel without asking themselves if they information could be wrong. I believe that they are hedonists but unlike the lust for drugs or sex their vice is self piety.
EDIT I: I don't use the metric system as an American and I made a mistake.
Edit II: More text wall and pictures because I wanted to walk my dogs and this site his been flaky on clearnet.
