I hate pro-bughive channels

[UmQasaan]

If you have a car and you're pissed about "muh infrastructure" you do know that off-road tires and amenities exist, right?

There, infrastructure is no object now.

“If you have electricity and you’re pissed about ‘muh infrastructure’ you do know that candles, iceboxes, outhouses exist right?”

That’s how moronic your argument sounds. Trying a more compelling one.

 

[Meriasek]

I guess a solution to the need for individual transportation on a larger scale than a bicycle without private car ownership would be an expansive rental and car-sharing system. Whenever you need a car, you can just quickly and easily rent one and leave it where you get out. The problem with this is that experience with these kind of things actually implemented shows that people don't treat these kinda shared cars very well. With rental cars the companies clean and maintain the car after every rental period, but with car-sharing that's not really an option, and these things would get pretty grimey pretty quickly. Not to mention broken.
And it again makes you dependent on infrastructure and removes your personal agency. Yes, with a car you're also dependent on infrastructure in terms of where the roads are and where the gas stations are and whatnot, but you can still, within reason, decide on a whim to go anywhere you please. With a car-sharing system your movement is under much more control since you simply don't own the car.
But that's the future, you will not own anything, innit.

I like trams, trains, and bicycles as much as the next Yuropoor, and I do prefer having stuff within cycling distance rather than having to drive somewhere, but owning a car results in a type of freedom of motion you simply don't have with any other mode of transportation. As much as I prefer trains and bicycles almost every day of the week, there are situations where your own car is going to be better. And with governments becoming increasingly overt in their desire to take away personal agency step by step, retaining a car might become more and more important. I haven't had a car for most of my life, and I still don't quite need it often, but I don't think I'll get rid of it anytime soon.

 

[UmQasaan]

I guess a solution to the need for individual transportation on a larger scale than a bicycle without private car ownership would be an expansive rental and car-sharing system. Whenever you need a car, you can just quickly and easily rent one and leave it where you get out. The problem with this is that experience with these kind of things actually implemented shows that people don't treat these kinda shared cars very well. With rental cars the companies clean and maintain the car after every rental period, but with car-sharing that's not really an option, and these things would get pretty grimey pretty quickly. Not to mention broken.
And it again makes you dependent on infrastructure and removes your personal agency. Yes, with a car you're also dependent on infrastructure in terms of where the roads are and where the gas stations are and whatnot, but you can still, within reason, decide on a whim to go anywhere you please. With a car-sharing system your movement is under much more control since you simply don't own the car.
But that's the future, you will not own anything, innit.

I like trams, trains, and bicycles as much as the next Yuropoor, and I do prefer having stuff within cycling distance rather than having to drive somewhere, but owning a car results in a type of freedom of motion you simply don't have with any other mode of transportation. As much as I prefer trains and bicycles almost every day of the week, there are situations where your own car is going to be better. And with governments becoming increasingly overt in their desire to take away personal agency step by step, retaining a car might become more and more important. I haven't had a car for most of my life, and I still don't quite need it often, but I don't think I'll get rid of it anytime soon.

Most individuals do not see the problem with owning a car, what is irritating is the over reliance on them. Your concern of "you vill own nothing" is a valid one, but consider this: How can someone own something if they're too poor to buy it? You say you don't need one, because you know it is an unnecessary expense for your day-to-day activities. That not only saves you the responsibility of maintaining a depreciating asset, but it reduces the monetary burden of trying to build your wealth so you have the prospect of buying one soundly in the future. The point of car share is not to make everyone own nothing (non tone deaf people know this is a nightmare), but to give another alternative of mobility for those who understand the financial implications of owning a vehicle. In turn, this lets someone save up enough money if they want to buy one. Providing people the option to spend less and save more, is inherently good for long-term success in an individuals' journey to accumulate wealth. It’s a more savvy way for people to move up the economic ladder instead of going into debt because the enviroment requires it.

You Don't Need to Own a Car (If You Don't Drive to Work)

Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: https://nebula.tv/videos/not-just-bikes-you-don-t-need-to-own-a-car-if-you-don-t-drive-to-work-carsharingFor about the la...

www.youtube.com

 

[Meriasek]

Most individuals do not see the problem with owning a car, what is irritating is the over reliance on them. Your concern of "you vill own nothing" is a valid one, but consider this: How can someone own something if they're too poor to buy it? You say you don't need one, because you know it is an unnecessary expense for your day-to-day activities. That not only saves you the responsibility of maintaining a depreciating asset, but it reduces the monetary burden of trying to build your wealth so you have the prospect of buying one soundly in the future. The point of car share is not to make everyone own nothing (non tone deaf people know this is a nightmare), but to give another alternative of mobility for those who understand the financial implications of owning a vehicle. In turn, this lets someone save up enough money if they want to buy one. Providing people the option to spend less and save more, is inherently good for long-term success in an individuals' journey to accumulate wealth. It’s a more savvy way for people to move up the economic ladder instead of going into debt because the enviroment requires it.

You Don't Need to Own a Car (If You Don't Drive to Work)

Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: https://nebula.tv/videos/not-just-bikes-you-don-t-need-to-own-a-car-if-you-don-t-drive-to-work-carsharingFor about the la...

www.youtube.com

If it's an alternative, nice. But that's not what is openly talked about. What is talked about is abolishment or at least extreme reduction of private car ownership.
I don't care if poor people can't buy a car, that doesn't concern me or should affect my ability to do so.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Did people in Weimar Germany think the leftist ways then were "progress"?



(hopefully history doesn't repeat what happened after if the pendulum ever swings back)

 

[No. 7 cat]

View attachment 3384313
Very few English either, makes one think.

Netherlands? Lots of decent English speakers there, sometimes better than monoglot native speaking 'bongs.

 

[UmQasaan]

What is talked about is abolishment or at least extreme reduction of private car ownership.

A select vocal minority are talking about that. Most of the prevalent narrative is an extreme reduction on car dependent infrastructure. Trying to parrot reddit as the head of the movement is indicative of the fact that people don't actually care what is good for others or not.

Also @AUTOEXEC2.BAT , nice try to sound "reasonable" in your veiled attempt to delegitimize the points brought up by NJB by trying to characterize them as tone deaf to their surrondings. This might be one of the most dishonest posts in the entire thread

They're definitely BreadTube adjacent (I mean, NJB is literally subbed to Contrapoints of all people). While I agree with the general sentiment of raising awareness for urban planning, I don't believe the polarization they're causing is a good thing. A lot of what he advocates for, only exists in the Randstad (The more urban, more left-leaning economic center of The Netherlands) and doesn't really exist outside of that bubble, apart from the Arnhem - Nijmegen region. Partly because of this, they're creating a false narrative, they're only showing you the good, not the bad.

NJB already did a video on Rotterdam on which some of the aspects of it can be improved. That is explicitly showing "The bad" side apart of it. I don't believe that just because their most popular videos are showing the good parts, doesn't mean that is representative of all the content that he produces.

For example, NJB tries to spin it as if American suburbs are dangerous and a Ponzi scheme.

- acts as if a point brought up by economical analysis is just a "spin"
- Does not deliante further as to why
This is a very common pattern throughout your entire post. As to why it is important, the conclusion makes it patently obvious.

When I was living in a more deprived part of the country, I was still paying a very high insurance rate, fuel and tax for my car, but I had no other option: The bus only went once an hour and it took 2 hours for it to get to my destination, whereas it's only 30 minutes tops by car. This shafts development in the poorer regions of the country.
I like cars, and I want cars to stay. These Youtubers are right about a lot of things, but they're ignoring many, many key points.

I don't discount your anecdote on the fact that differeing parts of the country are not like the Randstad. However it's your last sentence that is being completly dishonest, and I'm going to present evidence as to why they aren't "ignoring" key aspects as to why you said.

He forgets to tell you that The Netherlands also has sprawling suburbs (i.e. "bloemkoolwijken" - Cauliflower neighborhoods), while they do have better transport connections, they're still very far from the city (e.g. Colmschate). Anyway, my point isn't so much to discuss urban planning, my point is that he's being disingenuous.

He does a livestream on dutch suburbs

Spoiler: Sprawling suburbs

Talks about other, more sprawled out cities than amsterdam

Spoiler: NJB talking about other dutch cities

You are trying to paint a picture of him as if he does not discuss sprawl or suburbs in the Netherlands as apart of his videos, this is what happens when you don't do any research beyond the videos that are recommended to you. You make idiotic assertments like this. Other Youtubers have also done various videos on the subject

Spoiler: Peter Davis US vs Dutch suburbs

One of your country men even has videos all over the country, including Arnhem

Spoiler: BicycleDutch arnhem

Things like, "SUV's are vanity vehicles" are stupid talking points. The alternatives he suggests, such as a Urban Arrow bakfiets, are hilariously expensive, and only reserved for the Randstad middle class. The average person in The Netherlands cannot afford one, these cargo bikes are also vanity vehicles and he fails to address many points such as the width of the bike in relation to the bike paths, it's the same problem you have with SUVs, but because they're bikes it's suddenly okay? You're a bit of a hypocrite here Jason.

Are you acting intentionally dense? An urban arrow bakfiet is inherently less expensive than an SUV. So logically, it would be more financially resposible to aim for it first. It does NOT have the same problem as the SUV. It takes up way less space, costs less, doesn't require fuel, and is more agile. Are you just trying to make up the worst points imaginable to expand the length of your post?

There's a collective in The Netherlands that "shakes" the electric VanMoof bikes which causes the alarm to trigger, making the owner have to respond, as well as tiewrapping the wheels so the ride isn't as comfortable anymore. Yet, Jason is happily advertising these late-stage capitalism products and framing them disingenuously. It's the same problem SUVs have, but in bike form. He doesn't talk about this though, he doesn't want you to know this, because that's the bad kind of vandalism! Nooooo, not our heckin' bikes!

What the fuck is this trying prove? That he thinks that one type of vandalism is better than the other? Do you just say words and phrases in an attempt to sound like you're trying to make an argument? You willfully ignore that he DOES NOT condone the vandalism of these hooligans, he is pointing out that it is just a consequence of government inaction.

Also, as an expat in The Netherlands, Jason happily makes use of the "30% ruling", a tax break for if you're immigrating to The Netherlands. Yes, you read that right, not only is this guy shamelessly trying to widen the Randstad divide, he's doing it tax free like the grifter he is.

>NOOOOO YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE MONEY LIKE THAT ACCORDING TO THE LAW, THAT MEANS YOU'RE A GRIFTER
Touch grass. If you have a problem with the law, argue with the government.

One more thing, about the "missing middle housing": This doesn't exist in the same way it does in The Netherlands, however Jason wants you to believe there's a healthy mix. In reality, The Netherlands is in a deep housing crisis where the median income is priced out, there's 0, ZERO homes available for people with median incomes. This isn't the cause of the housing crisis though, it's many things that the government mismanaged such as the temporary mortgage tax deduction, bad rent controls and more. What he wants you to think, and what the government also wants you to think, is that we should build more housing. But the truth is, we have enough homes, except a lot are empty because the government introduced tax benefits around this for landlords, and many other reasons before something like mixed use developments come up.

Jason does not paint the Netherlands as perfect. I don't know why you keep parroting this narrative. Whatever governmental bullshit you are going through has nothing to do with the topic of better UP in the Netherlands. Take your bullshit to the international clique.

I'm sure many of the ideas they have are great on paper. But the reality is that someone will have to pay, and it will likely be the people of the poorer regions of The Netherlands like they've always done, they ignore this, they don't talk about this, they want you to believe it'll be a heckin' wholesome kind society. My parents live along a dirt road in a very poor area, with the closest public transport connection an hour away. The people who live in these places have been subsidizing the Randstad utopia for decades and they're sick of it. I'm sick of it too, especially when people come to the country using tax deductions and other benefits, conveniently ignoring the reality that someone is paying for their luxury. Their world-view is incompatible with what's actually happening in the country.

More political sperging. You are basically the trying to turn a guy who makes videos about Dutch infrastructure into somehow advocating for killing the poor. A guy who makes YouTube videos isn't running for a position in your government. Calm the fuck down you absolute autist.

On the subject of whether this should be in Mass Debates or Community Watch, this is definitely a community of people that are grifting with these ideas that are only going to drive a bigger wedge between the working and middle classes. We should try to provide strong counterpoints, not debate each other. I know that people like Jason, Alan Fisher, etc will read these posts, they always do. I hope we can plant a little seed of conscious and I'll be very interested to see any response from them.

The word "grifter" has now lost its meaning, throw it into the hole of other overused words. It belongs in mass debates because of the advid political sperging in the thread, you just proved it at the end of your mind-numbing rant. A community of people who think infrastructure is better in the Netherlands by making youtube videos is not going to drive a wedge between the working and middle class you nonce. None of those "counterpoints" you suggest would be in any any way taken seriously by people who are sane. Since clearly you have a personal vendetta against people who make youtube videos, you should take your meds, and get back on topic.


Edit: fixed link

---

This is, by far, the absolute worst post in the thread. Not because you don't like NJB or whatever, but because you're being dishonest, clearly haven't watched his videos, making the dumbest fucking arguments imaginable, all while trying to be under the guise of "good faith counterpoints". It's a whole lot of nothin'. I could have wrote a dissertation about why I like to watch paint dry and there would be more substance.

 

[AUTOEXEC2.BAT]

@UmQasaan I intentionally post in the way I do to keep the political side open-ended, and I try not to inject my own leanings and positions, as a result this might make my posts sound a little wishy-washy because people try to pin posts to a leaning in order to familiarize and relate to them, and the goal is to reach everyone and provoke thinking. But I'll give you something, since you've gone out of your way trying to disprove a troll: You're responding to tone, you're not talking about the substance of the post.

What the fuck is this trying prove?

He doesn't have a problem with SUVs as a product of luxury and excess despite trying to convince his viewers otherwise. Dutch people absolutely have a problem with manufacturers like VanMoof and Urban Arrow because traditionally The Netherlands is quite calvinistic and these are seen as problematic because of this. They perpetuate a culture of overconsumption, a VanMoof bike is wasteful because it can't be fixed by yourself or independent shops, so what happens if the manufacturer goes bankrupt? These bikes are also expensive to produce, they're excessive and largely a luxury item. It isn't sustainable. That's what Dutch people don't like, and that's why you're seeing people from all parts of the political spectrum complain about them. There are better manufacturers such as Gazelle and Batavus that make repairable and durable cargo and normal bikes. The bakfiets video largely sounded like a Urban Arrow ad if anything.

It takes up way less space, costs less, doesn't require fuel, and is more agile.

The average bike lane is 1.25 meters wide. The Urban Arrow bakfiets is 1.10 meters wide. In many situations you cannot overtake these because there's a median between the car lane and the bike lane, and when there's not, you'd have to enter the car lane which can be unsafe. How is it more agile? It is more agile than a car, sure, but lets not pretend they're agile and small by bicycle standards. They bring the same problems to the bike lane, that SUVs bring to the car lane.

acts as if a point brought up by economical analysis is just a "spin"

Because from a historical point of view the American suburb was never intended to be a ponzi scheme. Like you said, "Touch grass. If you have a problem with the law, argue with the government". What Strong Towns advocates for and by extension Jason is and end-all and be-all, they don't want car-centric suburbs, and I wouldn't call Strong Towns credible economical analysis.

Is not going to drive a wedge between the working and middle class you nonce

But it has, the Randstad and especially Amsterdam is almost completely middle class. Expats like Jason moving to Amsterdam has caused serious housing issues. Here's a source in English, it's hard to find English sources for you, but there's plenty of Dutch sources about this too. There is a massive wedge between the middle classes of the Randstad and the working classes of the provinces. See here, here and here. Sources are both left wing progressive (BNN) and right wing conservative (Telegraaf).
The problem is that what they're trying to portray is a Randstad-centric view, at the cost of the poorer parts of the country. Their lifestyle, infrastructure, social services are subsidized by the working classes of the provinces that are deteriorating more and more. We don't want more bugmen, and here you are defending them.

The word "grifter" has now lost its meaning

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Again, you're not talking about the substance but instead hurling personal attacks around with the wildest assumptions such as "clearly haven't watched his videos" and "you have a personal vendetta against people who make youtube videos", as a way to legitimize your rant, it doesn't make much sense because you know absolutely nothing about me. I've watched all of his videos, as well as Alan Fisher's, Adam Something's and I've read Strong Towns. My conclusion is that NJB and in particular Strong Towns are being disingenuous, god forbid someone watches and reads all of this content and still disagrees with them.

 

[Grotesque Bushes]

I hate this thread because the tard urbanist crowd is awful and fails to drive home a couple of decently thought out points because they purity spiral into trying to convince people that a fucking bike is a great tool to transport your fridge or couch.

Any city I've ever lived near had the same issue in that 99% of the traffic is people going in and out of the city. Every fucking city has had this issue, tons of people work in the city but don't live in it. How do you build a public transportation system that efficiently gets thousands upon thousands, possibly millions depending on the city, of people up to a half hour outside city limits anywhere in the city? Answer: you fucking don't just let them drive cars you retarded nigger.

You're halfway there. Of course people from villages will drive to the city for their daily commute. If you have well designed public transport a crucial element is establishing park and rides on city outskirts that are actually beneficial to the users, and if you use non-retarded public transport methods such as subway and trams/light rail, then you effectively stop/cut down car influx to the city because you're providing an alternative that is faster and more reliable than a car.

 

[UmQasaan]

intentionally post in the way I do to keep the political side open-ended, and I try not to inject my own leanings and positions, as a result this might make my posts sound a little wishy-washy because people try to pin posts to a leaning in order to familiarize and relate to them, and the goal is to reach everyone and provoke thinking. But I'll give you something, since you've gone out of your way trying to disprove a troll: You're responding to tone, you're not talking about the substance of the post.

No, you haven't kept the political side open-ended, quit trying to weasel your way out of thing by trying to pretend that your are doing so. The entirety of your post is dedicated to anti-expatriot sentiment, there is nothing in your post that would indicate there is any good coming from people who immigrate to your country. You throwing in a single line Oh well uh... a lot of their ideas are right " without elaborating on that fact doesn't change that. If you are actually serious about having this discussion, you would have laid out clearly what NJB and Co. are doing to correctly, but you didn't, did you? Because you actually don't believe in such thing in a pathetic attempt to sound reasonable.

He doesn't have a problem with SUVs as a product of luxury and excess despite trying to convince his viewers otherwise

Yes, he does. Why are you saying things that you cannot substantiate?

Dutch people absolutely have a problem with manufacturers like VanMoof and Urban Arrow because traditionally The Netherlands is quite calvinistic and these are seen as problematic because of this. They perpetuate a culture of overconsumption, a VanMoof bike is wasteful because it can't be fixed by yourself or independent shops, so what happens if the manufacturer goes bankrupt? These bikes are also expensive to produce, they're excessive and largely a luxury item. It isn't sustainable.

Again, you still neglect to mention the fact that the Bikes are inherently cheaper than an SUV. You aren't giving a fair comparison at all. The most expensive fiets is still 1/4th of the cost of an SUV. I believe SUVs are the same vehicle in the netherlands as they are everywhere else in the world, are they not? If a rational person had to choose between buying an SUV, and buying a cargo bike, the clear financially responsible thing to do would be to invest in the latter since it does most of the things you might need. It's only a "luxury item" if you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. The maintenance, production, and space taken up are far less than an SUV. Compare the SUV to the cargo bike and it is blatantly obvious obvious.

That's what Dutch people don't like, and that's why you're seeing people from all parts of the political spectrum complain about them. There are better manufacturers such as Gazelle and Batavus that make repairable and durable cargo and normal bikes. The bakfiets video largely sounded like a Urban Arrow ad if anything.

So now we finally get to the truth, you personally don't like the brand. Here's a hint: Just because you don't like a particular brand of something doesn't mean that the person is being dishonest. You could have suggested that jason go for other cargo bikes, but since it was clear that you personally don't like him or the brand that he was perpetuating, you went on a fallicious, misinformed tirade about how "dishonest" he was. Grow up, people like different things than you. No one is jumping on another person just because they prefer a Tesla over a Toyota. If they do, they are a lolcow and should be ridiculed as such.

The average bike lane is 1.25 meters wide. The Urban Arrow bakfiets is 1.10 meters wide. In many situations you cannot overtake these because there's a median between the car lane and the bike lane, and when there's not, you'd have to enter the car lane which can be unsafe. How is it more agile? It is more agile than a car, sure, but lets not pretend they're agile and small by bicycle standards. They bring the same problems to the bike lane, that SUVs bring to the car lane.

A standard car lane is 3.75m wide. One SUV vs 3 bakfiets, because 3.75/1.10=~3.4. It's really that simple. That's what NJB is trying to prove. You are trying to seperate bikes and cars in your statistics which is a woefully inadequate way to compare traffic. The point is to move people, period. Sometimes, those people have things they want to carry with them.

It is more agile than a car, sure

Stop right there. That is the entire point of the video. He never mentions in it that it is a panecea, and every solution comes with its new problems. If you gathered anything else from his video then you weren't paying attention

Because from a historical point of view the American suburb was never intended to be a ponzi scheme. Like you said, "Touch grass. If you have a problem with the law, argue with the government".

This is pretty weak. Just because it was never intended to be one, doesn't mean that it isn't one. If you did watch their videos, you would know that they (espcially Strong Towns) knew that the American subrubs were a way to curtail the housing crisis post war.

What Strong Towns advocates for and by extension Jason is and end-all and be-all, they don't want car-centric suburbs

Uh.. yes?

I wouldn't call Strong Towns credible economical analysis.

He has done and provided multiple peer reviewed studies to substatiate his claim. Provide the latter please.

https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/208114

From Jurisdictional to Functional Analysis of Urban Cores & Suburbs | Newgeography.com

www.newgeography.com

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1078087407309282

Automobile In American Life and Society

This web site explores the automobile's impact on American life through each of the site's five sections, Design, Environment, Gender, Labor, and Race. These section are highlighted with essays and illustrated with archival materials from the collections of The Henry Ford and other...

www.autolife.umd.umich.edu

https://lsecities.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NCE-Sprawl-Subsidy-Report-021.pdf

But it has, the Randstad and especially Amsterdam is almost completely middle class. Expats like Jason moving to Amsterdam has caused serious housing issues. Here's a source in English, it's hard to find English sources for you, but there's plenty of Dutch sources about this too. There is a massive wedge between the middle classes of the Randstad and the working classes of the provinces. See here, here and here. Sources are both left wing progressive (BNN) and right wing conservative (Telegraaf).
The problem is that what they're trying to portray is a Randstad-centric view, at the cost of the poorer parts of the country.

Thanks for actually providing sources on this one, but it's interesting in the first source you provide in english has these in the, "It's a complex situation" portion

But the situation is far from cut and dried.

McDonald owes his job to a British company that moved to Amsterdam in 2008,
so he can also see the benefits of an international culture.

Many expats, too, can see both sides. “I remember when the housing market in London exploded,” says British chef and Amsterdam resident Damian Taylor, “We didn’t blame the foreigners, we just accepted that it was part of having a global city. The problem is that Amsterdam is a village.

Victims not perpetrators

Today, just 37 percent of expats get their school fees paid and only 23 percent get help with accommodation costs.

Immigration can boost the economy. Last year, the Dutch economy grew by 3.1%: a ten-year record. Contrary to the idea of a finite number of jobs in the city now threatened by an expat invasion, employment figures grew by three percent in 2016 (OIS) and around 12,000 new businesses were founded.

It seems that there are benefits that you fail to address in your own sources that you casually mention out of your clear bias towards expatriots. Again, you are being opinionated and unfair, when the source provided actually is providing data.

Your dutch sources:
Im not paying for this, archive it

ZO GROOT is de KLOOF tussen STAD en PLATTELAND | Voxpop #83

De kloof tussen de Randstad en het Platteland wordt steeds groter. Kijk maar naar de protesten van de boeren en klimaatactivisten en de verschillende reactie...

www.youtube.com

’Zelden werd kloof tussen Randstad en provincie zo zichtbaar als in S…

archived 20 May 2021 12:21:42 UTC

archive.ph

^ these ones is just more rural vs city viewpoints. No facts presented except for what rural people think vs randstad. I see no mention on how factual it is as to how much expatriots are contributing the divide between the working and upper classes. It's looks like it's a matter of opinion instead of actually confronting the problem.

expats have unfortunately also become scapegoats for an overstrained housing market. Confusion on his face. How is that possible? He has lived here for 6 years!

'Het woord 'expat' is bijna een scheldwoord in Amsterdam' | Het Parool

archived 21 Aug 2022 23:31:53 UTC

archive.ph

Being blamed for muh immigrants is not specific to your country. Every retard with a mild understanding of economics thinks they know what is causing problems, it's just another

Expats in Amsterdam: 'Je zult je hier never, ever thuis voelen' - Ams…

archived 15 Jan 2018 17:28:42 UTC

archive.ph

Their lifestyle, infrastructure, social services are subsidized by the working classes of the provinces that are deteriorating more and more. We don't want more bugmen, and here you are defending them.

It's funny that you think that the poor working class contributes a substatial amount to "subsizing". If you actually read your sources you would see that the situation is always more complex than the one you love to regurgitate over and over in your head.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Not an argument, and you know I'm right.

Again, you're not talking about the substance but instead hurling personal attacks around with the wildest assumptions such as "clearly haven't watched his videos" and "you have a personal vendetta against people who make youtube videos", as a way to legitimize your rant, it doesn't make much sense because you know absolutely nothing about me. I've watched all of his videos, as well as Alan Fisher's, Adam Something's and I've read Strong Towns. My conclusion is that NJB and in particular Strong Towns are being disingenuous, god forbid someone watches and reads all of this content and still disagrees with them.

There is your substance. I provided you with evidence of NJB to counter the point that yes, you clearly have not watched his videos. If you cannot delineate to me the points he actually makes in his video, and just make up shit to parrot your narrative, then yes you are a dishonest retard who deserve those insults. Your disagreements would be more well founded if they were actually fair to the creator, which your’re were clearly not. All you have provided is a warped perception of who you think these individuals are without drawing logical conclusions accompanied by video evidence. Your disdain for them has clouded your judgement and it is clear by calling them "bugmen" that your are definitley the type of person who cannot hold a meaningful conversation for more than 5 minutes. So I hope you get the help you need so you can go out into the world and see how nuanced things really are.

I hate this thread because the tard urbanist crowd is awful and fails to drive home a couple of decently thought out points because they purity spiral into trying to convince people that a fucking bike is a great tool to transport your fridge or couch.

elaborate on what points you think are valid then.

 

[Amber the Hedgehog]

After watching few Not just bikes videos, man that guy has unreasonable hate boner towards cars. He tries to potray himself as reasonable but man does he fail at it. Like the Rotterdam one, he acknowledges that there are easy ways to move around without cars and plenty of space dedicated to that but that's not good enough. There are still cars and space for cars, the horror of parking places that are some reason more ugly than other very similar buildings around. Also how does this guy think that many of those walking distances would diminish by removing cars? There might be a reason, like crossing being situated badly but usually those don't do much differences outside of highways, railroads and rivers. You can always jaywalk in most places anyway.

 

[UmQasaan]

After watching few Not just bikes videos, man that guy has unreasonable hate boner towards cars. He tries to potray himself as reasonable but man does he fail at it. Like the Rotterdam one, he acknowledges that there are easy ways to move around without cars and plenty of space dedicated to that but that's not good enough. There are still cars and space for cars, the horror of parking places that are some reason more ugly than other very similar buildings around. Also how does this guy think that many of those walking distances would diminish by removing cars? There might be a reason, like crossing being situated badly but usually those don't do much differences outside of highways, railroads and rivers. You can always jaywalk in most places anyway.

I don’t think that not being content is being unreasonable. Just because you can jaywalk doesn’t mean you can do it safely. When things are so spread out you feel unnecessarily stressed when trying to cross. Think about it, would you be ok with your child or grandparent crossing by themselves in peak traffic? They could easily be hurt if not fast enough.

If the answer is no, then it isn’t safe enough to cross. Rotterdam was rebuilt for cars after it was bombed, so the standard for it to bring itself up to modern day standards should be acknowledged in full.

 

[Amber the Hedgehog]

I don’t think that not being content is being unreasonable. Just because you can jaywalk doesn’t mean you can do it safely. When things are so spread out you feel unnecessarily stressed when trying to cross. Think about it, would you be ok with your child or grandparent crossing by themselves in peak traffic? They could easily be hurt if not fast enough.
View attachment 3632219
If the answer is no, then it isn’t safe enough to cross. Rotterdam was rebuilt for cars after it was bombed, so the standard for it to bring itself up to modern day standards should be acknowledged in full.

Yes, the light is green and there is cars, but they are turning cars that naturally have go pretty slow and the law is that cars can only go if the crossroad is empty. Walking lanes and turning traffic can have the same turn so that more can go at the same time so everyone gets in and out faster. Some more busy intersections don't do this, they keep all the car lights red during the pedestrians crossing becouse there is enough both sort of traffic but often this is unnecessary. I have little issues of anyone using these on their own assuming of course that they should be on their own in general.

I'm still confused why build for cars is bad if other options are available too. Why is taking cars into consideration and having them be a practical way to travel bad?

 

[UmQasaan]

Yes, the light is green and there is cars, but they are turning cars that naturally have go pretty slow and the law is that cars can only go if the crossroad is empty. Walking lanes and turning traffic can have the same turn so that more can go at the same time so everyone gets in and out faster. Some more busy intersections don't do this, they keep all the car lights red during the pedestrians crossing becouse there is enough both sort of traffic but often this is unnecessary. I have little issues of anyone using these on their own assuming of course that they should be on their own in general.

A lot of dead people have been in the right according to the law, that doesn’t make them come back to life. Most traffic lights don’t have an all red, the closest thing to that would be a four way stop sign, plus you would back up traffic if the entire intersection is stopped for someone who going slow across a long way. As to who should be on their own, it’s is a product of the environment you’re in. You could chauffeur kids to school into their teenage years, or it could be like Japan when kids as young as 5 cross the street and take the train by themselves. It’s a matter of the environment you’re in.

I'm still confused why build for cars is bad if other options are available too. Why is taking cars into consideration and having them be a practical way to travel bad?

It is bad because the further spread out everything is, the more stops, time, and resources have to be used to get to so few people. This leads to the inevitable closure of routes, and the prioritization of only certain areas that are dense enough to have minimum profitable ridership. It’s not as simple as Slapping together a route and mission accomplished.

Plus, it would be practical for people in cars if there were options properly available. Less people driving their car means that there are less people on the highways, leading to less congestion. Again, that doesn’t mean that you can just put down a transit stop anywhere and you’ve solved the problem.

Car centric planning is bad for traffic because everyone is in cars that create it, it’s bad for people without cars because there are infrequent unreliable stops, and it’s bad for everyone period because you’re so far away from everything that you have to use a car to just get something at the shop.

 

[Bonesjones]

It is bad because the further spread out everything is, the more stops, time, and resources have to be used to get to so few people. This leads to the inevitable closure of routes, and the prioritization of only certain areas that are dense enough to have minimum profitable ridership. It’s not as simple as Slapping together a route and mission accomplished.

So live in the bug hive because its more efficient because you want to live in a bug hive. Fuck what people actually want to do and spend their money on? Funny how you try to make people not wanting and choosing not to use mass transit a bad thing.

Plus, it would be practical for people in cars if there were options properly available. Less people driving their car means that there are less people on the highways, leading to less congestion. Again, that doesn’t mean that you can just put down a transit stop anywhere and you’ve solved the problem.

There are options available, people just choose not to use them over cars. That's how appealing having your own mobile space that's air conditioned and weather proofed is. You know what you can't do with mass transit? Anything personal, you can't change clothes on a train or carry large or bulky things that people routinely do with vehicles.

Car centric planning is bad for traffic because everyone is in cars that create it, it’s bad for people without cars because there are infrequent unreliable stops, and it’s bad for everyone period because you’re so far away from everything that you have to use a car to just get something at the shop.

Its great for traffic since it gets people where they need directly instead of forcing them to routinely go out of their way to actually access what they need to do. Roads are insanely efficient for what they do and roads that don't feature heavy shipping traffic last for decades and are almost 100% recycled. Asphalt is the most recycled thing on earth. Guess that's not green enough for you though.

Oh no you might have to take a car to go shopping! You know what people do when they have a car and go shopping? They do it all at once every few weeks instead of only being able to buy enough to last a few days.

Maybe you retard faggots should stop trying to control human nature when you don't even begin to understand it.

 

[UmQasaan]

So live in the bug hive because its more efficient because you want to live in a bug hive. Fuck what people actually want to do and spend their money on? Funny how you try to make people not wanting and choosing not to use mass transit a bad thing.

There are options available, people just choose not to use them over cars. That's how appealing having your own mobile space that's air conditioned and weather proofed is. You know what you can't do with mass transit? Anything personal, you can't change clothes on a train or carry large or bulky things that people routinely do with vehicles.

Its great for traffic since it gets people where they need directly instead of forcing them to routinely go out of their way to actually access what they need to do. Roads are insanely efficient for what they do and roads that don't feature heavy shipping traffic last for decades and are almost 100% recycled. Asphalt is the most recycled thing on earth. Guess that's not green enough for you though.

Oh no you might have to take a car to go shopping! You know what people do when they have a car and go shopping? They do it all at once every few weeks instead of only being able to buy enough to last a few days.

Maybe you retard faggots should stop trying to control human nature when you don't even begin to understand it.

>putting words into mouth
>incoherent logic, backed by nothing
>name calling
It’s like a pattern

 

[quaawaa]

Also how does this guy think that many of those walking distances would diminish by removing cars? There might be a reason, like crossing being situated badly but usually those don't do much differences outside of highways, railroads and rivers. You can always jaywalk in most places anyway.

The streets in Amsterdam’s core are as wide as highways and just as impassable due to the canals in the middle of them. There are frequent bridges, but there are also frequent bridges/underpasses over/under highways in dense areas.
I haven’t heard him complain about that, but he frequently complains about having to walk similar distances to get to a crosswalk/bridge to cross a road.

 

[Bonesjones]

>putting words into mouth
>incoherent logic, backed by nothing
>name calling
It’s like a pattern

Address what I said or fuck off retard.

 

[Tour of Italy]

Notice how none of these urban planning-lite channel personalities have children.

 

[Bonesjones]

Notice how none of these urban planning-lite channel personalities have children.

Or do any job that isn't being a useless laptop user, or have any real hobbies, or do anything that isn't being a mindless consumer. None of them do any physical labor nor have any interests that require moving large amounts of heavy shit. They live their life at other people's expense, fully subsidized by their labor.

Its funny because I literally live the lifestyle they pretend to dream about and I'd never give up my car. Just like every leftist they don't want to face any facts nor deal with the truth of what they push. They just want to change society to fit their idea of how things should be instead of how they are.