JayDee

Red wants my friends dead, I have little choice but to ensure blue wins the presidency while I work for local change. Not voting is not an option.

Let's not forget that the only reason states exist is to serve those within them. If that state should fail to serve its people sufficiently, it's been common throughout history that they've been dismantled by the people.

You are correct about natural rights. They are fought for. Many rights, such as workers' rights, were strongly fought for and founded on blood (pretty much all of them in fact). However, when talking about rights, one remember the original meaning of the word: that which is morally good or honorable. The legal entitlement is preceded by the philosophical definition. In a just society legal rights should reflect moral rights as closely as possible.

Housing is necessary for life, and so depriving an individual of housing when housing is unutilized is equatable to murder, an injustice. This is why the post communicates that housing is a human right.

It would be a guerilla collective against a conventional force that's consistently failed against guerilla tactics.

There's no way to know how long it'd last or how it'd impact politics, but targeted acts of terrorism in cities would likely become a more common tragedy. It would pretty much gaurantee US states increasing their police forces and personal rights eroding, and I'm not looking forward to that.

That's fair - I wish you luck in your town hall meetings and marchs. Local change is always the fastest.

I think you've misenterpretted these convos. I am not blaming those people for not riding a bike, I literally pointed out the amount of effort and time needed to make their cities more walkable. That's not coming from a place of judgment, I'm just disseminating information I've gathered over time.

The post explicitly states "if entire cities were designed around [bikes] the way they are with cars, everyone would be fine with it", and I think it's important to keep that in mind.

The top of this comment thread states bikes don't protect you from the cold, among other things. The following comment says just to wear a jacket. There's a reply stating the guy saying 'wear a jacket' hasn't lived in cold climate. I then chimed in stating that in-fact, you just need the proper layers to bike in winter.

All of that above is one convo going on parallel to the other.

During this, the original comment also says bikes don't get you anywhere. The second person points out that the original commenter must live in the middle of nowhere, away from anywhere important. That's why I stated I don't think the comment was criticism. I think its just observation.

The reason someone can be in the situation is because A) they live rurally, which is a minority of people globally - or B) they live in/near a car-centric city. I detail the work they'd need to do to change that, and they changes they would have to allow. That isn't blaming them, it's giving a roadmap.

Not sure what you're meaning by "... blaming the victims of car-centric city designs." Is this going back to the comment before saying it's a "weird thing to criticise someone for."

Since you didn't quote a portion of my comment, I have no idea which portion you are saying is blaming people for car-centric city design.

Start yelling at your city legislators then. Force them to change how the city zones so things are closer together. It will take a couple decades of work, but you have to be apart of that change for it to happen.

Living on the border with Canada, I tell you now that I bike during the winter. It is in fact as simple as wearing the right layers. Even some of the coldest regions in the world have bike commuting.

I don't think the second part is a criticism. It's pointing out that you live in a place who's infrastructure has been completely fucked by car-centrism. Were it designed with walking, biking, or even just public transit of any kind as a priority, the distance between points would actually be short (public transit benefits from shorter distance between stops by having shorter routes Which cuts fuel and maintenance costs).

In order for cities to have changes in their structure, mixed-use zoning needs to be allowed, along with various other reforms to current infrastructure law - laws which disinsentivise driving (car-centric people label it as 'punishment' when it's more just revokal of massive amounts of privilege). It takes several decades, but overtime city footprints would shrink and become much more walkable - and safer - and more quiet.

Yeah, rural areas will pretty much always need cars or something similar - not just for traversing the massive gaps between places, but also because most rural homes are their own logistics for most things.

It also doesn't help that this conversation itself is a pretty America-centric one. In the US and Canada, dense urbanism does not exist outside of major cities. NotJustBikes on YouTube has many videos talking about just how car-centric and space-inefficient it is here.

• kryptonite U-lock.
• locking skewers for the tires, gears, seat and handle bars.
• an ugly color

At this point, they'll need an angle grinder to get anything valuable off the bike. It's more expensive but so long its not the standard of ever biker, bike thieves'll target easier bikes to steal off.

I feel you - that game is an exhausting sensory overload experience.

The issue is that your reducing a multivariable spectra to a single binary. That kind of data compression destroys a massive amount of valuable data, and alot of nuance along with it.