Do you wish to elaborate and perhaps explain it then?
EndlessNightmare
joined 2 years ago
I think the point is choice. Even those living in suburban and urban areas have a difficult time opting out of car-dependence.
If you choose to live rural, I would say that automobiles are part and parcel to that decision. It's just the nature of low population density.
What much of it comes down to is trust.
Can we trust that these systems will legitimately be used to improve public safety and not as a backdoor by the government to exert greater control? The skepticism is not unfounded.
The commodification of life itself.
Once you understand that we are just livestock to those in charge, a lot of their behavior starts to make more sense.
It's so difficult to get excited about new tech anymore.
Automobile-centric infrastructure was such a colossal societal fuck-up.
Bad for personal health, physical safety, household finances, and the environment. Automobiles are not a symbol of freedom, they are a symbol of dependence.
Money > humans > pets > wildlife > farm animals
It is certainly open to interpretation.
One could say "yes, they are different because humans can explicitly state when they are ready to go." I don't think that was the point they were aiming for though.
In a word: distraction. Alternately, the "circuses" in "bread and circuses"
Black Sails
Well shit, would you look at that. UTC +5:45
view more: next ›
It's so simple, so obvious...and such a missed opportunity. And while I personally saw the "too" as implied, it led to bad-faith actors really twisting it as well as inevitably some people actually not understanding it.
The fear of leaving anyone out led to tacking on more and more letters, and then disagreements about which letters to include.
I haven't heard this one before, but I like it for its simplicity.
"Defund the police" was another fail in that the phrase didn't accurately portray the actual intention and was off-putting to people who might have otherwise supported it.