Yeah, park and ride, bike and ride, complete public transit, or even driving on less crowded highways to cities with more available parking because other people chose other modes.
Ultimately how anyone would commute depends on their own personal factors and what's available. In the future we'll have more multimodal transport and that should make things nicer for everyone.
Making everyone who has white skin "white" is the very kind of ethnic erasure that people are arguing against. "white" is not a thing, it is not an ethnicity, it is not a single people. "white" is a construct invented long ago to justify a lot of terrible things. It is a consistently changing window on who is and isn't allowed membership. "whiteness" erases all it touches. "whiteness" is why so many "white" people are confused and frustrated about their identities. It's really just bad all around.
Bikes often solve or supplement the last mile problem with connections to transit. Proper bike lanes would be a massive boon to the reach of new and existing public transport.
To say nothing about the large amount of zoning reform and organizing happening in every major city in the US. NY's plan for example doesn't just come out of nowhere.
Bro it's that the inequality that the Kens are supposed to accept is just how it is.
I think we both get that and I think it's a great illustration. It actually hurt to hear that line as a guy.
But that's the whole point of it. If it hurts to hear that as a man about a fictional character in a movie how much does it hurt to hear that in your real life?
The movie is not advocating for switching to matriarchy. When Barbie gets liberated she doesn't leave Ken behind and tries to help him in his own liberation. Unfortunately other Barbies don't understand this and are happy to have their power back while doing minor feel good policy changes for the Kens. This is how the world actually works in a lot of instances. The movie is demonstrating quite pointedly how the world is so that we can see and feel it.
The deep divisiveness comes from the shitty ideas that should have been shunned long ago and instead were left to fester.
You don't care about instances loke Exploding Heads or their awful ideas because you're unaffected by them so you can hold these lofty perfect ideals instead of facing the reality of the situation.
Opposing and shunning hate speech is not fascism and your argument depends on pretending to be unable to see the difference between hate and disagreement.
Allow me to illucidate the simplicity of this in reality:
Economic policy: Disagreement
Minstrel show images: Hate speech
Energy policy: Disagreement
Saying men and straight people should have less rights than women and gays: Hate speech
No it doesn't. This argument works only if you assume that "intolerance" is something that can be defined as "anyone against anything I'm doing".
If fascists were able to say "they're being oppressive of my desire to exclude them from our society" then that's not a flaw in the paradox but their reasoning abilities. Any philosophy is irrelevant then.
The argument boils down to "it's impossible to know if the opposing side is truly being intolerant." You say it is impossible. I say it isn't.
More realistically you can make more tax brackets for levels of income higher than $500k. Cash income regularly exceeds this for CEOs.
You can also pass laws restricting how much can be paid out in ways other than cash both in value and percentage of shares. Or increase capital gains tax further past certain limits (this has already happened in 2013). Or have a graduated tax on loans taken against certain collateral (like stocks, bonds).
The laws themselves can get a bit complicated but such is law. There are plenty of ways to make sure the rich pay their fair share. They just don't want us doing it.