We should make cities more walkable, less dependent on cars
submitted 21 days ago by P-38lightning from (i.imgur.com)
view the rest of the comments →
[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - 20 days ago (9 children)
Walkability has shitloads of benefits.
But what's with the wolf in a sheep costume with the red and green rectangles around their eyes?
[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 20 days ago (8 children)
I think it's a little confusing because the wolf being exposed is on the left and the text is above the other text, meaning you naturally want to read it first, but the idea is:
The innocent, green, good sheep is saying: Making cities walkable is great! But it's secretly an evil wolf is disguise who has another agenda behind it: Using communism!!
... I don't really understand how one relates to another. I think you could plan your city around foot traffic and still have a free market with little to no starvation, citizen oppressions and gulags, but I think that's the gist it's gunning for.
[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 20 days ago (7 children)
But it's secretly an evil wolf is disguise who has another agenda behind it: Using communism!!
Oh? The claim is that urban planning requires communism?
Bloody hell. It's just a fucking sidewalk, people. Yes, it's often build by some level of government, but so the fuck are the roads. So making the cities drivable is equally communist.
[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 20 days ago (6 children)
Yeah, I'm not convinced of the connection, but u/WoodyWoodPecker is fleshing out the logic.
[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 20 days ago (5 children)
"Zu vill live in apartments, zu vill eat de bugs, zu vill own nufin und zu will like it. -George Soros and other WEF members."?
That reads less like logic to me than it does to you.
[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 19 days ago (4 children)
I'm asking follow up questions. That's why I said fleshing it out, rather than "Answered".
[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 19 days ago (3 children)
I think it's generous to call what he's fleshing out "logic".
[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 18 days ago (2 children)
I get that you don't think it'll go anywhere, and neither do I, especially given the gap between replies, but you gotta let him give it a go. Who knows? It could turn out to be irrefutable!...
Prolly isn't, but...
[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 18 days ago (1 child)
Increasing walkability is unambiguously good for the public. It's plausibly bad for motor vehicle manufacturers, in that families might need one fewer cars.
The claim that city planning supporting pedestrians comes from a whole communist branch of government that is completely different from city planning supporting motor vehicles is ridiculous on the face of it. They're the same people.
[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 18 days ago (0 children)
I don't know that the claim is that they are different. I think the meme suggests they are the same people... Also, I'm not sure why you're explaining it to me. You really need to have this conversation with u/WoodyWoodPecker, sorry. I can't make his point for him... As I don't really know what it is yet.
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~0 users here now
view the rest of the comments →
[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - (9 children)
[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (8 children)
[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - (7 children)
[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (6 children)
[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (5 children)
[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)