Recent comments in /f/Twitter

Lettuce OP wrote

Reply to comment by kano in Anti Urbanist Posting by Lettuce

I think I don't know enough to engage with this is any real useful way. So I'll just take what you said and appreciate your comments and opinion

4

kano wrote

Reply to comment by Rat in Anti Urbanist Posting by Lettuce

Well I agree with the last sentence, but as I see it, at the moment a lot of places where people live (also outside of the city, but also in a lot of the US cities, in the city) you need a car to get around and they are expensive, loud, not good good for the environment and take up lots of space. So I think it would be nice for a lot of people if cities were organised in away that didn't require that people travel dozens of kilometres a day in a car to do those things. I would argue the vision lettuce. And that it's much more pleasant to be somewhere when there isn't Hella car traffic passing by.

And I wouldn't have confidence that in the US cities will be reorganised in ways that really help everyone especially disadvantaged groups but there is benefit in people not all needing a car to handle any daily business.

3

Rat wrote

Reply to comment by kano in Anti Urbanist Posting by Lettuce

The problem with new urbanism is that it's designed for people to be productive consumers. Whether your workplace being just down the street, or going to buy some groceries next door, all of your destinations remain completely curated for you. Cities are just temple-complexes for civilization and its daily rituals.

6

kano wrote

Reply to comment by Lettuce in Anti Urbanist Posting by Lettuce

I think the situation is a bit different Europe then in the USA because the USA is really organised around car transport in a way that European cities I've seen aren't. And I've found the cities in the US much less pleasant to be in because of the huge amounts of car traffic and the fact that it's long and time consuming to go to places you need to go in the city there when you ain't got a car.

And it's not just about dense urbanisation. It's also about zoning and having public spaces in areas where people live, or that there are supermarkets close to or in residential areas which I know is not always the case in the USA.

So I think it's deeper than just having these pedestrian streets where all the big storsles you find in every city. it's also about people having the opportunity to go places without needing to sink lots of money into owning and maintaining a car. And I have lived in cities which I would designate as walkable but still have green space(even a lot of green space).

6

Rat wrote

Reply to comment by Lettuce in Anti Urbanist Posting by Lettuce

How dare you challenge Anarchy's building back better to make America great again!!! We need to mine more lithium for all of the battery-powered shoes we'll make for all the walkers we're gonna have in our fifteen minute citiesssss!

5

Lettuce OP wrote

Reply to comment by kin in Anti Urbanist Posting by Lettuce

Oh yeah l, doubt I would like whatever this person is advocating for. The negative reaction u had it kinda reasonable. I mostly posted it bc I was enjoying how it was making city loving anarchist mad moreso than being in love with the tweet. Bc the person does sound very annoying

4

Lettuce OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by kin in Anti Urbanist Posting by Lettuce

Oh for sure. This is 100% a annoying liberal being an annoying liberal. But I am more surprised that a annoying IDpol lib has enough sense to think that the hyper urbanized nightmares are a problem. Bc I can't even get more anarchists to see that. Bc maybe my experiences are US centric but walkable cities aren't a positive in a short or long term sense.

Like every city I've been in the walkable part of the city is the worst. It's basically the areas where all the rich NIMBY white people live. Where stories actively don't have bathrooms or allow people with backpacks. Almost all NonWhite neighborhood don't live in this area as the heavy urbanization of the walka le part of town makes everything to expensive is de facto segregated. And since there is so many people it can get away with swarming with police. Plus all the trains n busses and stuff are also very negative in my view bc they are a centralized thing under government control. So they often are filled with cops traps with drug dogs, and a heavy police presence. Not to mention I've actively seen them shit down and controlled to negatively harm homeless people.

I actively avoid all walkable areas of cities bc they are the most hellish urbanized area possible. So dense with stuff you can't get away with peeing in public and definitely not shitting. So many prying eyes so no where to loiter. Not to mention it's always the places with absurdly high rent that most can't afford.

Bc for cities to be walkable they become.more dense and more urbanized. People drive bc stuff is far apart are more remote. So with property cheaper there and allows for more green space. Every walkable area is a place most devoid of life ever. It's basically impossible for most life to even exist. It's uncannily scary.

So I see the whole walkable area as deeply concerning as people view places that are in my actual nightmares where it's just rich white non-criminals filled with cops and government control and no non human life so allowed and people say "wow I wish there was like here".

I mean it depends how people define fatness but I know lots of people who just can't bike or walk no matter how nice the infrastructure. And can at least live their life driving places and getting a motorized cart. I know people where walkable cities wouldn't be much of a positive development. Tho there are indeed plenty of people considered fat who can walk just fine for some distance.

But yes I mostly posted it bc I was shocked to see an IDpol lib have a better position on urbanization than many anarchists. Bc I genuinely am disturbed by every part of a walkable city I have ever seen. And would be glad if I never had to go to a walkable part of a city again. Bc walkable is almost always a euphemism for hyper urbanization of cities.

4

kin wrote

Reply to comment by Lettuce in Anti Urbanist Posting by Lettuce

I think it's less fatphobic dogwistling and more just not thinking about fat people.

I agree with this, probably the person have an specific context but when someone says to me he wishes a "walkable city" I imagine that the city is car based and a nightmare for pedestrians and other "weak" Travellers, like skaters, bikers and any other cool transports, but also for wheelchair people who have trouble with the pavement, elderly people with canes or anyone with a disability. So the walkable city is a transformation towards helping those people...

This triggered me so much coz I am thinking in all the bad reasons for someone to defend cars and the status quo

5

kin wrote

I will take this as one of the "weaponizing idpol to hide privileges" talking points I hate..

Not sure the context behind this, but is totally tone deaf imo, maybe mixing ableism and fat shaming? The idea that all "overweight" people are not able to walk, the toxic victimism that in unhelpful, patronizing people with different abilities?.... woke idpol will walk lengths to avoid challenging the status quo if it means the violent destruction of structures of power/control/domination. I would make another comment about how it feels colonialist to me, but not sure I would be convincing..

9

Lettuce OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by Rat in Anti Urbanist Posting by Lettuce

No idea tho I think the idea that the ugh city planning anarchists are wrong in part bc central planning doesn't account for many types of people is correct. And like I've seen many ideal anarchist cities be basically unusable by people who are movement impaired.

So it may or may not be real. Tho I def would agree with the idea behind this. Tho I wouldn't say it like that. I think it's less fatphobic dogwistling and more just not thinking about fat people.

5

StarFruit820 wrote

Reply to by subrosa

welp... I'm gonna make my A.nti.social account active now... this is really crappy

4

fortmis wrote

Reply to by subrosa

at first I thought this was going to be about ppls online time + mental health and all that

11