You've definitely missed the mark here. The power I see is one that believes that world is not theirs. We are occupying it currently and it is our responsibility to transfer power to the next generation with the world in as good or better shape than when we received it. In the transportation environment where I see that the elites get to drive and poor are taking the bus, is more than just that. It's an establish procedure where people can move to the driving population if needed and they can afford. The whole spectrum of the mobile public is either receiving money, a balanced where they are moving freely, or paying the price for having their steel box on the road. But I can see where you could make it where it's not cost effective to doing it by 4-wheels. You could balance out this spectrum of the traveling public and make it where people are paid for doing it freely, for example by bike or scooter. Many of these different aspects will be dictated on what the environment looks like. How many bidders there are too. And finally what was voted on by the public. Obviously things need to be worked out, but the big thing is that it isn't like it is today. You can be practically broke as a joke and be on the road today. I'd like to see it where if someone has chosen not to drive, they get a really good chunk of cash.

 

You never even read the article, did you? Expanding the highway doesn't really solve anything. You complete the project and in 10 years commutes are back to that same point or worst. And not very easy to expand again as there's just no room! Not to mention the cost involved. Also we're talking in cities here, the article is in regards to Portland.

 

Well apparently voicing my opinion has had at least 18 responses, hasn't it? I posted it cause one of the blogs I follow posted it. I read it and believed what it stated. The article got reposted here. You got something on The Frontier Group that's not legit?

 

Sneefy brought up fascism.

Legislators have been directing 95% of transportation spending at cars for the last century. That can & should stop.

"Public transport isn't desirable"

So I just want you to make it clear:

You're okay with government funding for stuff that benefits you (highways) but not for stuff that doesn't benefit you (public transit).

Who's the fascist again?

 

It's actually wrestling the power away from the ones in power. That is the ones that taxes the driving and non-driving public for building the roads you travel on. I wonder if your god will help me once he/she knows that I'm wrestling power from the ones destroying the earth?

 

sneefy, what floats your boat? You have a source or two you follow and I guess believe? Do you follow and believe what PBS tells you? I assume you follow that, or at least know about it. What about your national new sources? That's ABC, CBS, and NBC. What about BBC? What about 60 minutes? What about CNN? Or do you drink the Fox News cool-aid? There's alot of good sources out there. Yes at times you gotta kinda see the news from a few different sources, but pretty much all the ones mention, minus Fox, have stated the same story each time. I guess that would be a pretty good source for building your views of the world, right?

Do you believe the world is flat or round? Like a ball or a disc?

 

Ok! There's a bit to unpack here.

Ok, in summary, social engineering and taxing behavior you disagree with is justified because it's to SaVe tHe pLaNeT. Got it. :eyeroll:

Do you think this thread has been constructive? It's all been partisan back and forth. You think this sort of bickering is valuable?

Oooohhhhh. I see. You're either just someone who wants to vomit your opinion, or you're a troll. Got it. Stupid of me to not have realized that sooner.

Spending should go to what's necessary, not what you think it should go to in order to engineer behavior.

Come on Mike. You're obviously smarter than this. Did you actually believe I meant the existence of public transportation isn't desirable? LOL

I obviously meant isn't a desirable choice for them. i.e. They would prefer to drive instead. You'd have to be pretty far gone around the bend to believe what you did. Nobody ever suggested defunding public transportation. If you recall from previous discussions, I have explicitly and repeatedly stated that I believe in public transportation as something for the common good. I doubt your memory is that short.

So, you'd rather, again, use the force of government to force people into your narrow worldview in order to sAvE tHe pLANeT and you would feel completely justified doing so. Got it. If the taxers are in power, taxing people more doesn't transfer power to the taxee.

Were you drunk when you posted this?

If you're actually interested in reading anything that doesn't simply reinforce your cognitive biases, I suggest you look into a quality aggregator that sources articles from both sides, even from the whack-job sites like Mother Jones and the Daily Beast. I suggest starting with https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ Note that their in-house stuff leans Right, but they source from everywhere in order to present balance.

But, be warned, in addition to the stuff you're normally spoon-fed and believe without question from sites like Vox and Salon, you'll see things from sites such as *gasp* The Federalist and The American Conservative!

Try to sane sane in the face of conflicting arguments! Good luck!

 

Figured I'll just post these together.

I didn't know it was so offensive to want to make the world a better place than what you found. I'm not sure I'll ever be any different in that. I'd much rather be out on a lifeboat without a paddle than be money hungry. Guess I'll be SaVe tHe pLaNeT for the rest of my life. At least I'll know the world is round. In regards to posting here. I post stuff up almost exclusively to something transportation related. Unfortunately it's not regarding 4-wheel cheer leading. I assume there's a better way of getting around. I know the response to this already. "If there's a better way, why aren't you using it?" You deal with the environment you are in the best way possible, and mine is presently with a steel box. I do feel there's a better way than each person in a steel box that's at best 20% efficient. So looks like what is in store for me is more "vomiting my opinion".

You speak of my view as being a narrow view. I'd argue that it's far wider if there isn't a steel box to worry about. If many things are available to you without the steel box, things are open and stimulating to your everyday activities. Many cities in Europe it's possible to get around quite easily without a steel box. In matter of fact, much better. Fresh bread is available with in walking distance. Public transportation is within walking distance. Many things can be resolved with either walking or biking. Why? Cause the cities have a density that makes it desirable. Even going to other cities and countries are doable without a steel box. Many actually prefer this. It gives the opportunity of meeting and talking to people from another country. Try doing that in a steel box! I argue that your views on movement are narrow!

In regards to taxing and choice of transportation. The current system of taxing and transportation leave it where there's endless expansion on the cities and so forth. This is living in the 60s. The same idea was out there. Everyone had a steel box and roads were limitless. Numerous expansions. (remember this thread right?) were thrown around. I would argue this is far more taxing to the public than my idea. My idea is that we have a finite amount of roads. We don't endlessly add more steel boxes to road. What dictates the amount of cars is capacity. This dictates the taxes. Low capacity means the elite drive and few other. There is control on the amount of steel boxes on the road. It's not build more capacity.

Your site RealClear Media Group seems rather closed to newcomers. I was able to search around and look for about 10 minutes, then things got shut down. I guess they don't like new people using their privacy blockers and what have you. They do like to surveillance you though! Kinda sad, but it looks like it's mostly the flat earthers and regular right wing folks like you. Even turning off the privacy settings and other avenues didn't let me back in. Really didn't waste too much time on it. Tried to read current WHO/Trump story and was just posted up. Seemed fairly unbiased, but I bet it's thrown out there to see the temp of the users. Anyways I made an attempt. Sad that you don't really follow any of the sources I mentioned. They are actually fairly open. They do whine a bit about privacy settings.

 

Yes, but the fact that you've got 18+ responses is kind of MY point.
It's YOUR admission, by your own statement, that you weren't even looking for responses,- " I'm not trying to get people to post a response. I'm trying to voice what I think is the correct way in proceeding in society. "-User1
Well I think then your misusing, or not being realistic about exactly what a public, internet forum is about. You generate a post, you AUTOMATICALLY get a box attached that say's what? "Quick REPLY" which is inviting visitors to your thread to Respond.

It's fine that you created a thread, with a post that reflects your opinion, using information from a source that supports your viewpoint. But I think once doing so, especially a thread that is titled with a question, not a statement, you should expect responses.
With that reality, on any topic, with any viewpoint, I think questioning the source, IE: the article you source, is perfectly valid.

If you don't want responses, and you don't want people questioning your source, then what you want is not an open "Fit Freak" thread. I would suggest your own blog, where you can be in control of that personal agenda, with less open debate, and questioning.
Otherwise, source valid, fair/balanced or not? To not expect response, or to not expect evaluation of source is not a reasonable position.

 

User1 is posting stuff he finds interesting. There's nothing wrong with that.

Y'all seem to be taking his perspectives as attacks on your own.

It is fine that y'all somehow think vehicle traffic will only continue trending upward & somehow that isn't a terrible thing. Hopefully y'all are not planners or transportation engineers.

 

I'll summarize the above:

Steel box = BAD!
Bicycles - Good! (This one is true)
Taxing people I disagree with in order to punish their behavior = Good!
Impact to those people's lives = Don't care!
Cities = Good!
Anyone that lives outside of the city = Eff them!
People that disagree with me = Flat Earthers!
Social engineering to fit my personal worldview = Good!
Freedom = Irrelevant!
Intellectualism = BAD!
Reinforcing my cognitive biases = Good!
Differing opinions = Bad!
Echo chamber = Good!
Reading comprehension = What?

A bit reductive? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

 

You're right that there's nothing inherently wrong with voicing one's opinion. But why post on a discussion forum unless you're interested in discussing? He's made abundantly clear that he's not interested in opposing views (he said as much) and because he gets very defensive when his views are challenged. He either wants an echo chamber, or is just posting the article like it were a retweet. What he seems to want to do is just crap the post out and walk away. Maybe that makes him feel good? I guess everybody likes taking a huge dump every now and then.

Anti-intellectualism is a sickness in society and he is exemplifying that.

What I take as an attack on mine (and many others') way of life is his view that those that disagree with his way of life need to be forcefully brought into line through the power of government. He has every right to believe that and I have every right to tell him that he needs to go suck an egg. As someone that values freedom and distrusts government (regardless of which side is in power) I find his views on not just the the acceptability, but the desirability of social engineering disgusting and wholly offensive.

 

Sure there's nothing wrong with that.
But then I think you have to be ready, and open to the debate, even attack that opinion, viewpoint may create. Feel free to defend the opinion and the source. But you shouldn't say, "I'm not trying to get people to post a response. ".
Yes, you are, or should be. Otherwise why even bother creating the post to begin with?

My personal opinion, separate from the actual issue, is what do they say? Know your Audience.
Know your Audience.
This is the "Off Topic" forum of "Fit Freak". But it's still "Fit Freak", which means I think one reasonably should expect that most participants own and operate CARS, and that they probably enjoy doing so.
So if you are routinely and repeatedly posting Anti-Car, Anti-Vehicle usage posts? While you're perfectly free to do so, in an automotive forum, one should also expect a good percentage of audience or respondents, that are going to disagree.
I'm NOT saying User1 is doing so, but I think it's starts to drift into the realm of not seeking sincere debate, or as admitted evidently not even looking for debate and response, then it starts to drift into the realm of trolling.

You have to expect people visiting your thread will respond, try to answer the question posed, may disagree with your viewpoint, and may question your source.
If it's a anti-vehicle "support" or usage opinion, that you are posting in an Automotive forum? Then be ready for those that do NOT agree with your opinion and agenda.

 

It may not be his intent, but it's certainly the result. I don't think he's self-aware enough to realize it. Sorry if that sounds unkind, I think it's simply true.

 

You've shown time & time again on this site that you also have no interest in viewpoints that diverge from your own. You came into this thread to express your disagreement with the thought posted in the OP, nothing more.

Anti-intellectualism is absolutely a problem in this country...which you're espousing by expressing anti-planner views lol. To be hired as a planner in this country pretty much requires a graduate level degree, many schools not offering any classes in planning whatsoever.

It is a Honda Fit forum. Honda Fit owners likely skew more environmentally conscious, more practical & (anecdotally based upon bumper stickers I see on Honda Fits in the real world) more progressive than the ownership group of almost any other car. Don't post like this is a Ram 2500 Compensator Edition enthusiast site.

You can like cars without liking the environmental, societal, economic costs that they cause. I do not understand how this is so hard to grasp. I LOVE cars. I own two, both modified, I have watched racing for as long as I can remember, I've traveled outside of the country to watch racing, I've made time on vacation to watch a race on my laptop, I've lived on little more than ramen to pay my mortgage & buy a pair of wheels, etc. I also pick up litter when I come across it, I owned an electric lawn mower, if I can ride the bus, bike or walk to a destination rather than drive I do it, I carpooled rather than commute solo, I buy fuel efficient vehicles and I vote for candidates that are more likely to fund transit, increase road & fuel taxes, and push back against road expansion backed only by very short term thinking.

Humans can contain multitudes & even occasionally be a little hypocritical.

User1 is defending his views just as you would defend whatever views you have.

 

LOL. Really? You know that's bullshit, Mike. Is your memory so short or just highly selective? You and I have had some very reasonable and interesting discussions when you're not calling people Nazis (and apparently while I'm not calling people Fascists...). I have even agreed with many of your points and I recall you agreeing with several of mine. When you're being reasonable, you're a good foil and make for some healthy debate, which I enjoy and appreciate.

Disagreement, absolutely. But accusing me of anti-intellectualism is patently absurd. First, credentials (graduate degrees) have absolutely nothing to do with intellectualism. Second, not sure how you equate holding differing views on transportation, taxation, and the power of government as being anti-intellectual. Oh, I see. It's simply because the Left end of the political spectrum believes they have a lock on Intellectualism therefore any opposing views to theirs are anti-intellectual.

The hallmark of intellectualism is being open to discussing opposing ideas, and not simply dismissing them out of hand. That is something that User1 has shown (and admitted) that he is unwilling to do and is not his goal with these threads. Hence his exemplification and demonstrably narrow worldview. He exhibits nothing but group-think and, by his own admission, is simply regurgitating content and not interested in actually discussing it.

I suggest you re-read the last long thread on transportation that started with one of User1's posts. You and I debated and discussed with each other quite fairly and reasonably. Apparently you don't recall?

I came into this thread calling out consistent bias, nothing more. Suggesting to the OP that if he was interested in sparking good discussions, he may want to post from a variety of sources rather than always posting stuff from one far end of the spectrum.

Frankly, I'm glad that he admitted so clearly that discussion is, in fact, NOT his goal with these threads. It's good to get to the truth and know that he's basically a troll.

 

Did you really read my post? Or did you just post a response you wanted to post, that really has nothing or very little to do with what I'm saying?

I'm not even here debating the the actual argument, or the article. What I'm saying is that it's disingenuous, to create this thread and then say " I'm not trying to get people to post a response."

Well, then why start the thread at all? If you only are looking for silence or complete agreement, leave the article in the blog you found it. Don't drag it to a AUTOMOTIVE forum, post it, then get upset when someone doesn't agree or questions the source.
I'm sorry but that action is IMO to akin to trolling. I don't care what your divination of Honda bumper stickers is supposedly telling you about how Honda Owners progressively skew. I mean if your argument is being supported by what you think you infer from bumper stickers you've seen, well....the ship is already sunk.
Almost the rest of your post, IMO has nothing to do with what I've said or am saying.
I don't care that you like cars. I don't care that you think people can like cars and still simultaneously dislike the environmental, societal and economic costs. Even though separately I would argue that if you really don't like the environmental, societal and economic costs of automobiles, you really don't like automobiles. What's left? I like them parked in museums?

Listen you can agree with Users1's viewpoint, the article...whatever. That's really NOT what I'm talking about. As I titled my thread, I'm talking about expectations of debate/discussion.
If you really are interested in a discussion, debate, and perhaps expansion of idea and opinion? You have to be willing to not only defend your own ideas and opinions but listen to others, even those critical of your ideas.

By saying, I'm not trying to get people to post a response, I think that reveals an agenda, and an somewhat disingenuous use of this, an automotive forum, in a "trollish" manner.

 

I'll break this out to a different post for clarity.

Yes, Fit owners tend to be more environmentally conscious. Cost-per-mile is my primary reason for owning a Fit, but the smaller environmental impact is important to me as well.

I've owned a push (reel) mower, an electric mower, I used to donate to the Sierra Club before they became unreasonable whack-jobs. (Well, twice. Maybe I just didn't realize at first that they are whack-jobs...)

Economic issues are my primary, limiting government intrusion into people's lives is tied at #1 (mainly because they are so tightly intertwined), but environmental issues and social issues are important as well. I prefer a clean environment and believe in being good stewards of it. But, like everything else, there is a balance to be had. Zealotry and extremes in any form are universally terrible.

I'm a walking hypocrite and contradiction just like everybody else. Personally, I believe that if you aren't conflicted in your views and beliefs, at least a little, you haven't thought about them enough. So, I appreciate that you think we're complex creatures.

 

Similar for me. Environmental impact (high mpg) + low cost to buy & own + massive amounts of space for hauling furniture, wheels & aero = perfect car for me.

This is an area I struggle to agree. I think for a lot of folks, government intrusion 'limiting' folks is not necessary, for they're going to do the 'right thing.' It is the people who do bad/dumb/hurtful stuff that cause the need for regulation. When the Gov. Evers made state parks free & open during the shelter-in-place order the people who crammed them full of people, ignore social distancing recommendations and left them filled with their trash are the people who closed the parks, they forced Evers' hand, he didn't force them to be garbage folks. Ditto economic regulation, don't want regulations? Don't exploit folks or take needless risk that tanks the economy for us all. Don't want environmental regs on companies? They should've been working to reduce their footprint, not speeding us all to a climate apocalypse.

My view of government is that its role is to serve and protect both its constituents and the world at large.

Happy to agree with this bit wholly.

Are those points on which we already agreed though, among a broader disagreement? I don't know that either of us have 'had our minds changed.'

See, now we're getting 'leftist man bad' takes. You've talked about how planners are trying to attack freedoms in this thread. Planners that have worked hard to become well -educated in understanding constituent needs, (hopefully) environmental needs, government structure, etc. These are things the vast majority of Americans don't have.

 

But let me question this.
Does that even matter? Where Fit owners fall on a hypothetical spectrum of environmental consciousness doesn't impact what I'm saying. I never said, nor did infer that Fit Freak was a " Ram 2500 Compensator Edition enthusiast site " as accused.
I said it was an automotive forum. Period.
The only assumption I'm making is the majority of us (Fit Freak Users) support automotive usage. Therefore MAY be not be as supportive of User1's viewpoint as advanced by his article in this thread.