I hate pro-bughive channels

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Public transport could be improved in the US and other places, but that would mean higher fares but better frequency and the exclusion of undesireables and weirdo (like someone on a Greyhound talking of he keeps his slave gf in a dungeon basement, an s&m thing, not a traditional man upholding the peculiar institution) but there's stupid laws which mean smelly people aren't barred or kept at the back. I suppose some of these people want the US, wherever car reliant to be the Netherlands, but the Dutch have a small flat country and the rate of bicycle use was always high, even when roads were more hostile. Public transport, bike routes are all good, better road design, but the US and most countries are both larger and not quite so flat.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: weebycumdumpster, Ira the Weatherman, Tracer's Butt and 6 others
protec cat said:
Public transport could be improved in the US and other places, but that would mean higher fares but better frequency and the exclusion of undesireables and weirdo (like someone on a Greyhound talking of he keeps his slave gf in a dungeon basement, an s&m thing, not a traditional man upholding the peculiar institution) but there's stupid laws which mean smelly people aren't barred or kept at the back. I suppose some of these people want the US, wherever car reliant to be the Netherlands, but the Dutch have a small flat country and the rate of bicycle use was always high, even when roads were more hostile. Public transport, bike routes are all good, better road design, but the US and most countries are both larger and not quite so flat.
Click to expand...

There's something else missing from the Netherlands which is prominent in US cities.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: BikeLock, Caesare, weebycumdumpster and 15 others
Cities looked nicer before the automobile. Compare a good city like Charleston or San Francisco to a shithole city like Atlanta or Los Angeles. The latter existed long before cars, but grew massively afterwards. Meant it could sprawl out over a huge area, doesn't even have to have a skyline much less nice, cozy neighborhoods and business districts where you can walk to everything.
 
  • Disagree
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Fatsuit Shinji, Bananadana, Ira the Weatherman and 7 others
Holy shit, the example dude in the OP is genuinely retarded, and possibly schizo.
The dude starts off with some weird example from USSR-era Romania and then starts bitching about the UAE, and some "SEA LEVELS ARE RISING!" shit. He never then ties this back into his sperg out about Dubai and instead goes on some weird rant about how history does not remember everyone equally, and how immigration into first world nations is actually bad for the immigrants.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Moths, Caesare, Luigi Cadorna and 12 others
mr.moon1488 said:
Holy shit, the example dude in the OP is genuinely retarded, and possibly schizo.
The dude starts off with some weird example from USSR-era Romania and then starts bitching about the UAE, and some "SEA LEVELS ARE RISING!" shit. He never then ties this back into his sperg out about Dubai and instead goes on some weird rant about how history does not remember everyone equally, and how immigration into first world nations is actually bad for the immigrants.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised how he doesn't mention (I think) the Doomsday scenario that Dubai will get covered in sand coming from the South, and become a wasteland, like in Spec Ops: The Line. Battlefield 2042 also shows another Middle East city, Doha, also becoming a giant ass sandpit too, in similar fashion.

Has the fear of desert cities becoming abandoned, giant ass sand pits to make sand castles, are a thing with Climate Change discussion?
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: RepeatedMeme, MrJokerRager, The Great Chandler and 6 others
Freedom of movement in a car aside…Americans once had a rail system that was the envy of the world. Unfortunately car lobbies and the fact that most public transport went broke during the 30s due to it being privatized made public transport in the US pretty lackluster. Would the US benefit from a better rail network? Sure. But it only makes sense to link major cities (say 10,000+), even then it would be a MASSIVE undertaking. I’ve had many conversations with Europeans who, frankly, can not understand the concept that America is fucking huge. Many rural communities might live hundreds of miles from a major population area, there is just no way to build infrastructure on that grand a scale. Not everyone wants to live in a city, hell, not everyone should, that is…if you like to eat.

Oh and niggers. The beauty of the car is that you’re insulated from them.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Atli, Don Cossack, beautiful person and 27 others
I suffered through public transportation in the US for years. At no point did I ever go "you know if they had more money and the government decided to take away land from everyone else, this could really work!"

I don't know what public transit these anti-car fuckers ride because it always smells like piss (at best) and it always takes a long time to get anywhere. The only time I take a train anywhere is when I wouldn't want to park my car in the neighborhood of my destination, and I'd prefer never to have to travel to a city in the first place.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Fatsuit Shinji, Don Cossack, weebycumdumpster and 11 others
Corpun said:
They don't get this concept. Bugmen think all the commodities you could ask for should be within a five mile radius of whatever closet you are renting for 50k a month because they are terrified of the outside world.

Fuck these niggers though, I agree with every last word of your post.
Click to expand...
They're terrified of what lies beyond the overpriced cities they live in and the manicured suburbs most of them come from but are compelled to hate for in-group acceptance, but also want shit like high-speed intercontinental railroads that nobody will use because the overhead costs for the journey will be too expensive for most people anyway. The thing with bugmen is that every experience they have has to hold a certain degree of curated control, otherwise it becomes a disaster. They can 't just boondock in some national park (which by the way, is one of the funnest things I've done all year, single-degree temperature notwithstanding), they have to settle on a campground with assured amenities like internet and bathrooms, otherwise it's a no-go...not that most of these people are particularly interested in experiencing nature anyway. A bugman's intellectual curiosity stops at Reddit.

Maybe it's because I've worked a little bit in logistics, but I don't get the impression that these people rationalize where their food comes from and how it gets to them in the first place. It may as well be magic to them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Fatsuit Shinji, Atli, Don Cossack and 13 others
Skitarii said:
More trains and busses? Nah, less cities and more countryside.

Luv' me car
Luv' living in a small town
Luv' seeing tweakers get their ass kicked by other tweakers

Hate when those tweakers look like OJ Simpson
Click to expand...
You won't have more countryside if it keeps getting devoured by housing developments and urban sprawl. I agree that some of these channels often can be too extreme in their hate boner for cars but the arguments regarding the socioeconomic cost of sprawl do have some relevance. My home state of Texas is facing the issue of countryside being paved over with concrete strip malls and sprawling housing developments of shoddily-built, inefficient McMansions.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: lurking for the deets, weebycumdumpster, Tomboy Respecter and 10 others
smeckt said:
People who love public transportation must not have any important meetings or interviews in their lives that they have to be at.
Anyway, cars, trains, bikes, planes and boats compliment each other and serve different routes but everyone and their mother seem to be unable to realise that
Click to expand...
Not necessarily? In some places public transportation is probably shit (we have a bus line in my town, but it's not even usable for me because it doesn't run anywhere close to my apartment), but in some I'd imagine it's real predictable that you just plan around the schedule.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Bananadana, Ira the Weatherman, shameful existence and 1 other person
NevskyProspekt said:
You won't have more countryside if it keeps getting devoured by housing developments and urban sprawl. I agree that some of these channels often can be too extreme in their hate boner for cars but the arguments regarding the socioeconomic cost of sprawl do have some relevance. My home state of Texas is facing the issue of countryside being paved over with concrete strip malls and sprawling housing developments of shoddily-built, inefficient McMansions.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the nice parts of small towns are also usually pre-car. You know the kind, usually pompously called a historic district, where the little brown and red brick business nestle next to each other along a road that the courthouse sits on.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: JanuaryViolet, weebycumdumpster, Ira the Weatherman and 8 others
NevskyProspekt said:
You won't have more countryside if it keeps getting devoured by housing developments and urban sprawl. I agree that some of these channels often can be too extreme in their hate boner for cars but the arguments regarding the socioeconomic cost of sprawl do have some relevance. My home state of Texas is facing the issue of countryside being paved over with concrete strip malls and sprawling housing developments of shoddily-built, inefficient McMansions.
Click to expand...
I can actually agree with them on this point, the issue is they have to sperg out on every fucking detail. Urban sprawl wouldn't be as bad as it is if the people planning it weren't incompetent with layout and so greedy they would be using cardboard if they could get away with it.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Caesare, weebycumdumpster, Tomboy Respecter and 10 others
Colonel Gaddafi said:
Freedom of movement in a car aside…Americans once had a rail system that was the envy of the world. Unfortunately car lobbies and the fact that most public transport went broke during the 30s due to it being privatized made public transport in the US pretty lackluster. Would the US benefit from a better rail network? Sure. But it only makes sense to link major cities (say 10,000+), even then it would be a MASSIVE undertaking. I’ve had many conversations with Europeans who, frankly, can not understand the concept that America is fucking huge. Many rural communities might live hundreds of miles from a major population area, there is just no way to build infrastructure on that grand a scale. Not everyone wants to live in a city, hell, not everyone should, that is…if you like to eat.

Oh and niggers. The beauty of the car is that you’re insulated from them.
Click to expand...

Fair warning, I am a rail nerd.
Autistic sperging about passenger rail and rail in general begins in 3,2,1...
Last warning!

Ok even as late as the 50's you could take a passenger train from most any wide spot in the road to any other wide spot in the road. The US rail system was built and paid for by the railroads. Yes there were a few cases like the transcontinental railroads where the railroad would be given land along the route of the new track but that wasn't the norm.

Come the 50's air travel is a thing. The airlines don't pay for airports, the taxpayer does. The airlines don't pay for air traffic control, the taxpayer does. Railroads had to not only pay to build stations they had to pay taxes on the land and the building. They have to pay taxes on every mile of track and the land underneath it. On top of all of that they were not allowed to set prices until after the Staggers Act passed in the 80's. So they lost money on passenger service and could not discontinue routes until the government said it was ok.

Thousands upon thousands of miles of railroad track were pulled up to save on maintenance cost and to save on taxes. If you have ever ridden Amtrak and had to wait hours in a siding for a break between freight trains you understand how valuable those tracks could be now.

I think it is one of the biggest mistakes in US history that somthing wasn't worked out with the railroads to keep the passenger network we had. Either giving the railroads tax breaks on passenger service equipment and facilities or transferring some of that extra track to the government so passenger rail would have it's own tracks.

Instead the railroads were taxed to build their competitors and no wonder they got out of the people moving business.

Sadly once you put the government in charge of somthing, everyone working there is a government employee.
If you have ever ridden Amtrak you know the food prices are high. Even with that Amtrak looses money on every food sale. I have read they loose as much as they take in. (If you buy a $10 hamburger they loose $10). This happens mostly becase their labor cost are insane. This report was from a few years ago but it says the average Amtrak foodservice worker was making about 3.5x as much as someone who worked at a regular restaurant. That wasn't counting health insurance, vacation time and a pretty sweet retirement package. They are all union and nearly impossible to fire. I am going to link a report. (BTW on top of all this the cashiers tend to just help them selves to the till and no one seems to notice.) https://web.archive.org/web/20061229151920/http://www.house.gov/transportation/rail/report.pdf
I get working on the train is hard but is it 3.5x as hard as working any other kitchen?

So I don't know how to fix things but I can see why they are messed up.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Fatsuit Shinji, Sandy Sun Dunes, blur and 27 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back