SkepticalButOpenMinded @ SkepticalButOpenMinded @lemmy.ca

Posts

2

Comments

506

Joined

2 yr. ago

“We need tons of parking lots until we get walkable cities” gets things totally backwards. Walkable cities are impossible because of the stupid amount of parking lots we have.

The dilemma you pose of “parking vs walkable cities” isn’t even real: we massively overbuild parking lots so we can stand to get rid of most of them. I’ve been to SK many times. Strip mall parking lots are half empty even during the busiest times of day. It’s insane. You could build housing on tons of that land without ever causing parking lots to fill up.

Here in Vancouver, there are almost no strip mall parking lots and the absolute number of cars is higher than anywhere in SK, and yet, there’s STILL too much parking. There’s almost always parking within a block or two of any store outside of the downtown core. The distance you walk probably isn’t that different from across those huge parking lots.

Honestly, we can go on a massive parking diet and, because we overbuild parking so much, there won’t even be any downside for drivers.

I bet it’s a little of both. I think every successive generation in the US has become more socially isolated. Car culture, suburban sprawl, internet culture, lack of “third places”, etc. I’m reminded of the sociology book Bowling Alone, by Robert Putnam. It starts with the observation that more Americans go bowling than ever, but memberships to bowling leagues has fallen. Americans are still bowling, but they’re bowling alone.

This is a pet peeve of mine: the term “liberal” has gone through a semantic shift in the US. It used to mean “generally left leaning”. I think maybe the word “progressive” has taken on this role now.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that many European languages always used the cognates of “liberal” to mean “free market”, I.e. “economically conservative”. This is also how the term is used in some academic fields, like economics. But this is precisely the opposite of the other meaning!

It’s pretty clear the article is using the first meaning. They even use “leaning left” interchangeably with “liberal”.

My theory is that since Americans have been interacting with Europeans more online since the 2000s, the terms have become conflated.

This discussion is going off the rails. Most of these points are wild digressions.

It’s funny that you think Biden is some step above Obama when it was Obama who joined the Paris agreement in the first place

How does that argument even make sense in your brain? Obama was president at that time, so it was impossible for Biden to be the one to join it. Joining the Paris agreement is absolutely empty without actions. Unlike Biden, Obama passed no major legislation to support it and did not make climate a priority.

The economic recovery is on paper... The US is standing tall because the other countries are simply doing worse.

You're missing the point. The US is doing better during a worldwide recession because progressive policies work. Left leaning economists like Joseph Stiglitz argue that the generous covid stimulus programs is why the US has avoided a recession, whereas Europe is suffering for their economic conservatism.

Biden eliminated $130 worth of student loans after helping create the $1.7 trillion student loan crisis we have now:

Biden was a centrist senator, but please stay on topic: we're talking about his current presidency not what he did 20 years ago. As Sanders said, "I think he is a much more progressive president than he was a United States senator".

The actual topic:

You made the ridiculous assertion that Democrats and Biden are "Republican-lite". You haven't addressed that point at all, because it's utter indefensible bullshit and you know it. People like you are why progressives keep losing. If progressives don't know and can't recognize when their policies are being passed, then progressive policies will never be passed.

No. This is extremely lacking in nuance. I am not defending all compromise. Some compromises are garbage. But being against any compromise, and praising the Tea Party, is a lazy ignorant position. Obama was an overrated moderate president, unlike Biden who has tried very hard to pass progressive policies.

Even with a Republican president and senate, House Democrats somehow managed to pass some of the most generous and progressive Covid relief in the world (even more than Scandinavian countries), including expanding child benefits and Medicare, and the US is benefiting from the strongest economic recovery in the world because of it. Biden has eliminated $130 billion worth of student loans. The Inflation Reduction Act was the biggest environmental legislation in a generation, and recommits the US to the Paris agreement. You know who voted for all these good compromises? Bernie Sanders.

Calling that "Republican-lite" is straight up ignorant. Republicans wouldn’t do any of that.

This shows you don’t understand the US political system at all. The US system is intentionally designed to require compromise. The US also has extremely weak party discipline. Voting against your own party is unheard of in most parliamentary systems, but it’s normal in the US. That means there needs to be compromise even within a single party. If you want progressive policies, more progressive Dems need to be voted in.

There are people like you on the Republican side too. People who would rather the government shut down than compromise with Democrats.

Edit: if you seriously think a president Bernie Sanders wouldn’t also compromise with Republicans, then you don’t know the first thing about how legislation is passed.

Exhibit A. That is exactly what they are not doing. Anyone who thinks they are Republican lite is not paying attention.

The progressive vote is hardly guaranteed. It's fickle, hyper critical, divided, which enervates us as a voting bloc. Conservatives are the most reliable voters, and, surprise surprise, they wield outsized political power.

Totally agree. But pressure is both positive and negative. It means rewarding good policy, not just criticizing everything. Biden has made many moves to satisfy progressives. But if none of it matters electorally, why even try? Why not go back to pandering to centrists and conservatives?

Look, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a low information voter. People are busy, and reading endlessly about politics is an unproductive hobby, just one of many out there.

But it is absolutely true that the most critical people on the left tend to be extremely vague on the specifics. Because they don't know the specifics. And being baseline critical allows them to protect their ego. "Those powerful elites won't fool me!" And don't get me wrong, powerful elites are trying to fool you. But one of the ways they do that is by convincing you that nothing ever gets better. Nothing is worth supporting. That every policy is as bad as any other. Everything that looks good is actually secretly bad.

Here's an example. Lack of competition and enshittification is frequently in the news. Inevitably, someone will comment that "both sides" are corporate shills, and it'll get a ton of upvotes. Anyone who knows anything about the current FTC knows that that's insane. In a shocking move, Biden appointed a young progressive firebrand as the head of the FTC, Lina Khan. She literally wrote the academic article starting the super progressive New Brandeis school of anti-trust. This new FTC has been sometimes clumsy, but super aggressive against corporations. This was an olive branch to the far left. And it's one of the many reasons why progressives who are paying attention begrudgingly appreciate Biden.

You're gaslighting yourself in the other way. There are two kinds of low information voters. The first kind uncritically worship their "side" because they're misinformed about the vices. The second kind are cynical and critical no matter what, even when policies help them, because they're misinformed about the virtues. The right tends to do the first, the left tends to do the second.

There's a reason why the most informed left leaning people are the most strongly in support of Biden. Including people like Bernie Sanders and AOC, both of who have praised him for governing progressively.

That’s actually even more depressing. The legal minimum wage is so low that it’s not even lifting up the wages of the most modest jobs in the lowest COL areas. It functionally doesn’t exist.

Yes, the lack of civic knowledge is sometimes frightening. I’m not one to say “both sides!”, but in this case, I see it on both the left and right: people who don’t seem to understand that most major bills in the US pass through compromise. This is true even when one party has a majority, because the US has some of the weakest party discipline of any system (eg people can vote against their party).

You are acccusing them of invoking a thing that only you invoked and when you’re called out on it, you accuse everyone else of “mental gymnastics”?

I agree with your sensible degree of caution, given the context. It’s good media literacy.

Agreed. I think both are part of the picture. Consumers are buying the wrong kind of car (or manufacturers are selling the wrong type of car), too big and too inefficient, and there is price gouging, especially during the pandemic shortage. It’s telling that car prices were the fastest to come back down of almost any consumer category last year. Shows how much they could come down.

Cars have also ballooned in size since the 90s. In the 90s, sedans were the most common type of car. Now, it’s SUVs and light trucks, which use tons more materials.

Why are you getting downvoted? Why is Lemmy defending rich corporations and not consumers??

You opened dry pasta in a dry room and got less than the advertised amount. If there’s residual moisture in the factory that evaporates, that is their problem, not ours. Yes it’s a small variation, but that reasoning works both ways: they should include a few extra strands to make sure the consumer gets the right amount.

This was my thought as well. A lot of these games are never made, even when the ads do very well (as evidenced by the ad continuing for years). Someone actually made the bait game for real, in recognition of the fact that the games have been advertised for many years and never made.

Even if OP’s explanation is sometimes correct, it doesn’t seem typically correct. In fact, it seems like a rare edge case, at best.

I did a quick search for this but nothing came up. Do you have a link to an article?

Cars are the number one killer of children in Canada. We tolerate a disgusting amount of preventable traffic accidents in Canada, but comparing that to killing children by shooting them or putting them into deadly chokeholds is nonsensical.