this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
729 points (95.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

11399 readers
349 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] glowie@infosec.pub 18 points 2 days ago (10 children)

How does a theoretical case of not having insurance companies make a car non-driveable?

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] moakley@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Isn't anyone else disturbed by the concept of independence being a problem for this person?

I'd like more public transportation in America, but I'm not really interested in anything else they have to say.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, because your premise is incorrect. This person is completely in support of the concept of independence, but simply rejects the notion that car-dependency provides it. Real independence is achieved by removing the dependency on cars.

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

You didn't read the second line?

"Now the whole idea of independence is a messy social construct with a bunch of issues that I won't get into right now."

I don't see how anyone could interpret that as anything other than a blanket statement about independence.

I searched up the artist to find more evidence and saw that I wasn't the only one who thought that, because they posted a follow-up attempting to clarify that specific line. The clarification just reiterates the point of the original comic and doesn't try to explain why that phrasing was used or what it could have meant.

So maybe they just phrased it poorly, but I'm not the only one who took issue with it.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Acknowledging that a concept is complicated is different from being opposed to it. You deciding to interpret the statement the latter way instead of the former is your own problem, not theirs.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They literally say:

"Now the whole idea of independence is a messy social construct with a bunch of issues that I won't get into right now."

(Emphasis mine). They are not just saying, "it's complicated." They literally use the word "issues."

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah. And "issues" means "issues," which is not the same as "bad."

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"Issues" in this context means "problems", and problems are bad.

Yeah, and check this out!

That's the type of independence I want to strive for.

They want to "strive" for "issues"? We know what they think independence is. Why do they want to destroy society??

[–] logos@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

How is claiming that independence is a complicated, nuanced concept problematic?

It sounds like you are interpreting it as if they are saying it doesn't exist or something similar which is not at all what they said.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (10 children)

Owning or renting a home has the same requirements of dependency on multiple companies. Sure, in a city or large town or even some.small towns we could live without cars if we built the infrastructure.

But there will always be rural areas where cars make sense. Insurance would be a lot cheaper without all the city folk driving...

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Owning or renting a home has the same requirements of dependency on multiple companies

Are you suggesting people go without homes? And that's analogous to going without a car?

Maybe you're really radical and want free public housing like people want free public transit, but that's far outside the overton window.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

I am saying home ownership, the freedom that goes along with it, and the need to rely on multiple companies is the same and both have a different context in rural areas. So does renting and most other things in life.

Plus relying on public transportation means trading companies for government, which in theory should be better but then again government decisions tend to be strongly influenced by those companies which is how we ended up in the car centric urban hellhole that we are in now.

The comic comes across as dismissive of a ton of nuance that apply to large areas of the US to make a point that applies to urban areas.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago

In rural areas everyone uses either bikes or railways.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] 5in1k@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago (5 children)

How do I get to and then around Michigan’s Upper Peninsula? I don’t want to go be in cities like at all? What’s the plan for that?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Rin@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago (14 children)

With a car, you can fix it yourself if you are determined enough. However, if you're using public transport, the same arguments apply + now things are enirely out of your control. There's no way in hell the public transport company will let you tinker with their broken stuff. The insurance company can pull out of them at any time for any reason. The company can go bankrupt, etc.

i feel like independance and not having to rely on someone would work better as an argument for the car.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

No matter how determined I was to work on my car, it didn't matter. That shit sucks, is hard to do, especially if you don't have previous experience.

Also, cars today aren't roomy 1990's (or before) engines. They pack it so tight in there, with the need to specialized tools and knowledge.

Cars have become increasingly hard to work on oneself. Especially as computers and mechanical engines have been fused together.

I'd rather have my bike with a lane, or a sidewalk, lined with trees, than have stroads with rubber dust, smog, and noise, uninhabitable to pedestrians.

[–] Rin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

I guess you're right. Personally, I've done some maintainance on my car as well as some basic repair, but I can understand that it's not for everyone.

And yeah, as the other commentor pointed out bikes seem like a better symbol.

[–] ZDL@mstdn.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@Rin @grue It's hilarious watching people like you tout the "inevitability" of public transit failure as if **THE MAJORITY OF THE PLANET DOESN'T USE IT WITHOUT ANY OF THESE "INEVITABLE" FAILURES COMING TO FRUITION!**

It's almost as if you're spouting bullshit from a position of abject ignorance and a deep-seated aversion of analysis and/or introspection.

Almost.

[–] Rin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My brother in christ, you missed the point.

[–] ZDL@mstdn.social -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@Rin Yep. Position of abject ignorance.

Buh-bye.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›