I can't imagine getting this upset over a kid and his dad.
View attachment 6175156
How many of these fucking subreddits are there, anyway? (Related question: how many alt accounts does Jason have?)
View attachment 6175155
Source,
Archive
The truck seems to be modified to go off road perhaps the dad does go off road or not. But what I have noticed is that none of the people brought up the fact that the father could use the truck to go off roading on the weekend but still use it as a daily driver. Sure, it might not be efficient but its greener and cheaper than buying, maintaining, and insuring another car.
They still hate it probably. The emissions thing is just something they point to get more credence for their side. It's really a moving goal post for them. If it wasn't for emissions they go to "muh children". If you make that a non issue with pedestrian detection, automatic breaking and front facing cameras, it's "muh car centric infrastructure". They constantly have a ever moving goal post that's impossible to catch.
I've come to the conclusion that the only consistency they've ever had is they want you to own nothing and be happy docile.
I have noticed a disingenuous streak when it comes to urbanists and their plans. As an example see this video.
When the urban planner is posed with the question that "Higher density developments will lower property values in my area" the question is never answered rather she dodges and states that development has to improve an area. But she never suggests what this contribution is. However, I did some digging:
So when this lady throws out the talking point of community benefit should could mean a homeless shelter, a halfway house, a park (or improvements to), open spaces, etc. But these "benefits" doesn't ensure that the housing prices will fall below the benefit of the community improvement. As an example, if I owned a $500,000 townhouse and they built an eight story housing complex thereby decreasing my housing value to $425,000, it doesn't matter if they add new benches to the street, put in bus shelters, or add new playground equipment to the park unless the improvements raise my housing cost by $75,000.
Until then, I actually lose money on my housing but this bitch just ignores it and sticks to her talking points in an attempt to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
A similar ploy is used when people start discussing 15 minute cities. When lambasting persons critical of 15 minute cities, they will suggest the plan is just one where people can get to the places they need to be within 15 minutes but when it comes time for implementation, that's when the real policies come out.
Such, there is a proposal to make an area a 15 minute city and the ads claim they just want to make everything accessible within 15 minutes. But then comes the policies of dramatically reducing traffic lanes, traffic calming measures, implementing fines for driving out of an area, or banning cars from a certain area. In nearly all cases these policies go hand in hand as it will be claimed that such measures are needed to achieve a 15 minute city.
Lastly, there is something deeply unsettling about there urbanist desires. They seem the suggest that they want to make living in the suburbs as costly as possible but that just means most people including the middle class are herded into cities through various policies (mainly fiscal) while the upper classes can enjoy living outside the cities. I guess what I am trying to convey is that while most of society is living in mixed income housing (homeless, asylum seekers, drug addicts, recent immigrants, criminals) the rich get to experience their own version of Versailles.
