SwingingTheLamp @ SwingingTheLamp @midwest.social

Posts

5

Comments

1,084

Joined

2 yr. ago

Was that Florida? It sounds like something Florida would do.

In any case, that sounds like a stretch, since this congestion toll has garnered nationwide media coverage, and NYC has posted plenty of advance notice in the form of road signs (pictures of which have accompanied many of those news reports). Google Maps warned me about the congestion toll when I pulled up my driving route to Manhattan. But even if one were to just hit the road without any foreknowledge of the route, the existence of toll roads is well-known, so the possibility of encountering one is part of the decision to drive.

I feel that "another thing coming" has mobster vibes, and a comeuppance is a deserved punishment.

Yeah, that's what I've always figured, since the implied threat of violence/retribution seems like a very American attitude.

That one always gets me. The phrase means that the person is wrong about something, and circumstances will compel them to reconsider their position or opinion. The word "think" refers to a cognitive process, such as reconsidering their position or opinion. As for the alternative, what's the "thing" that's coming? Their latest Amazon order is out for delivery?

Curiously, lesbian relationships show similar rates of domestic abuse to hetero relationships.

Yes, you are correct, I did mean to imply the use of something provided by the government in the definition of a user fee charged by the government. That's what makes the tax on the sale of a sandwich a tax; the government is a third party, not otherwise involved in the transaction.

I have to say that I reckon the congestion toll as quite specific. One does not need to pay it to enter lower Manhattan. It is immediately spatially and temporally connected with driving on certain city-provided streets, just like the other $54.28 in tolls that I found I'd have to pay to other governments to drive to NYC on their roads. In any case, tax or user fee, I think it's more justified and fair than the taxes used to construct those streets.

I don't recall the name of the effect, but there's a characteristic curve that shows up on the graph of public support for these kinds of changes. The hysterical outrage peaks at the time of implementation, but falls off as time goes on. If it has visible benefits, and it lasts, a lot of people will claim that they supported it all along, by November 2026.

Skeptical hippo is skeptical. If people are going on a freakin' cruise, staying at a Manhattan hotel, or attending a convention, I very much doubt another $9 is going to be a deciding factor.

ETA: Out of curiosity, I consulted Google Maps about driving to Manhattan. It helpfully alerts me that my route would pass through a congestion zone, but does not calculate that price for me, nor add it to the $54.28 of other tolls that I would have to pay along the way.

Eh. Money's perfectly fungible, except for restrictions the government puts on itself through the budget process. Theoretically, they could have simply decided to pay for the MTA with existing funds, and tie the future of street maintenance to the implementation of the congestion toll. Instead, they tied the MTA funding increase to the implementation of a congestion toll, for political reasons.

How is it a tax, other than as an attempt to drum up opposition from the poorly-informed? This charge is very clearly a user-fee, as in, you have a choice of whether to pay it or not, and the amount you pay is directly tied to what you use. It's even implemented through the EZ Pass system, like any other road toll!

A tax, on the other hand, is compulsory, and levied on people whether they drive in lower Manhattan or not. The reason that New Jersey had standing to file its ridiculous lawsuit in first place is that some of the affected roadway is U.S. highway. If that's sufficient, then I want a say, because I'm forced to help pay for that highway, too, and I've never even been to lower Manhattan, so how's that fair?

Yes, it was incredibly, transparently dumb, but that was her stated reasoning.

Wasn't Gov. Hochul's rationale for pausing it that it would keep Jerseyites from driving in to have lunch?

Perhaps my memory is bad, but as far as I can recall, they jettisoned all ideology after the Tea Party (funded by Libertarian billionaires) fizzled. So, pretty much about the time Obama took office. It's mostly racism and tribal identity now.

So young men are believing that everyone except them are all in relationships and/or fucking all the time, and believing that them not doing those things makes worth less as a human being.

I just want to add that, in virtually every online discussion I've seen about the dynamic between men and women, if a man says something incel-ish, or otherwise not popular, there will be somebody (almost always a woman) who will fire back a retort like, "yeah, but no woman wants to be with you anyway," (I haven't seen it on Lemmy, which is wonderful.)

There it is: Your opinion, and by extension your worth as a person, is based on your ability to have sex. Is it any wonder that men think that, after being explicitly informed so?

Without a single coherent thought expressed!

That's so 🔥!

I have to push back here and say that I think that the "emotions are feminine" explanation doesn't give the whole picture. There's also instrumentalization of men.

We're all familiar with objectification, the tendency of (some) men to ignore women's agency, and treat them as objects for their own use. On the flip side, in my experience, (some) women instrumentalize men. That is, treat men as agents to be used as tools to achieve their own goals. As a result, I think that (some) women use men as a bulwark against the stresses and existential terror of human existence, or sometimes even literally, like a bodyguard, or the one who has to deal with the spider in the house.

You want your vacuum cleaner to suck up dirt when you pull it out of the closet, and then disappear quietly back in there once the job is done. You don't want to have to change the bag, and clean the motor, and replace the belt every time. More metaphorically, you don't want to find out that your emotional ramparts against a scary world are built on sand, and that's what kind of happens when (some) women find out that their partner has fears and weaknesses, too.

I've heard the same story many, many times from men whose partners begged them to open up emotionally, only to flee once they found out that those emotions included fears and self-doubt. It doesn't make sense that they'd do the first part, if emotions were unattractive, per se.

(Edit: Missing word.)

I'm with you on that last bit. The problem that we have with cars is the way that almost everybody is forced to use one for every trip to go anywhere, or at least forced to own a car for many trips. We can't sustain that economically (I believe that car ownership is a financial burden for around 1/4 of Americans, and our infrastructure rates at D+ nationally), ecologically (climate change is only part of it, the direct ecological destruction is also enormous), and even psychologically (the loneliness epidemic). I'd be over-the-moon if everybody had a choice of a convenient alternative to a single-passenger car for any trip that they wanted to do, with cars as the luxury alternative.

Necessities? How did humans survive for 200,000 years before their invention?

Yes, but it's a hair-splitting distinction that it's not a law is not an individual mandate that each citizen own one. There are plenty of other laws that do literally require cars. For that matter, it's required by law that we have Social Security Numbers, and that's just a side note in a discussion about their role in our society.