Oh how could I forget, blacks aren't allowed to buy trees because all of us whites have a monopoly on them... OH WAIT WE DON'T! JUST BUY SOME TREES AND PLANT THEM YOU LAZY CUNTS!!!
It's worse than that. I read an article about how various foundations would go around trying to plant trees in cities for free, and black-owned houses were much more likely to refuse them permission. So it's not even about buying them, it's about just allowing them to be planted.
It then went on to try to blame it all on whites anyway, saying that there was mistrust because there originally were trees on the sidewalks, and the racist whites cut them all down so their helicopters could track criminals, but didn't provide any actual evidence that any of that was actually more than an urban myth, or whether that was really the motivation vs. controlling a tree blight or something, or whether it was perhaps a rational and justified policing strategy if it wasn't, nor did it explain what any of that has to do with not allowing people to re-plant the trees decades later.
It's almost like there are people determined not to hold certain preferred groups accountable for their own bad decisions. X shoots Y? X is bad. Y shoots X? Let's dig deep into Y's life and figure out how an X did them wrong and basically forced them into it. Ys have no agency, only Xs.
Age of Wonders 2 is as close as it gets to a sequel and is recent enough that the graphics are solid. AOW3 starts branching off into something else, and AOW:Planetfall continues to go in that direction, in addition to the obvious sci-fi thematic shift.
Yes, that's definitely all true. And it's worse than that. It manifests at practically every level of society. Why is it that, when men outnumbered women getting college degrees, it was proof of systemic sexism and resulted in a major piece of legislation in the form of Title IX, but now that women significantly outnumber men and the ratio is getting worse every year, people just talk about how proud they are of the imbalance (like Obama doing exactly that in a state of the union address) and how we need even more gender-specific scholarships for women? Why is it that a male high school teacher having sex with a female student is rape, but a female high school teacher having sex with a male student is 'an affair'? Why is it that, when people are avoiding danger, it's 'women and children first', or when deaths in a military action are reported, you'll hear 'X dead, including Y women and children'? Why is it that blacks getting shot by police results in a major movement and attempting to explain it with statistics will result in people calling for you to be fired from your job, but men accounting for 96% of people shot by police results in nothing? Why is it that women can serve in the military if they want to, but only men are required to sign up for the draft? Why is it that we have a presidential candidate who announced that he would only consider choosing a woman as his VP, but the idea of a candidate announcing he'd only choose a man would be electoral suicide? Why is it that having almost all men in your boardroom is considered shameful and wrong, but having almost all women is considered progressive and wonderful? Why is it that James Damore was made into an international pariah for daring to suggest that men and women might be different, and Google should hire the most qualified candidate instead of discriminating against men? Why is it that trying to have a single men's rights speaker at your university will likely result in a riot, but you almost certainly have an entire women's rights department (women's studies) built into the school itself? Why is it that every time women lag behind men in any area, whether it's health or education or any professional field or politics, it's considered proof of sexism against women, but when men lag behind women, it's seen as proof of men's inferiority to women?
Or, to put out a specific example for this site: John Flynt, aka Brianna Wu's company only hires women. Nobody in anti-GG or in the gaming press has a single problem with that. Imagine what they'd say if a company existed that only hired men. Hell, even in KIA itself, in the early days, people organized a fundraiser for "girls who code" or something to try to convince onlookers that we weren't sexist. Imagine that: Organizing a fundraiser to give money only to one gender, to convince people you are NOT sexist. Because that's what "I'm not sexist" means these days: That you are actively PRO-sexism against men.
So yes. Yes, I would agree that society values women over men specifically because they're women. A society that treated its women the way we treat men is basically unthinkable.
Wow, similar reasoning too. But that article sure is something...
Manhattan, already one of the most car-free places in the country, is the best place to start.
Fucking what? Yeah, Manhattan definitely doesn't have any cars. I guess he must mean per capita, but is it per capita ownership, or per capita usage? And either way, is that a particularly good measure of how important cars are for the population? It's also funny how whether a given article controls for population size is entirely dependent on whether that would make the numbers look better for the point they're trying to make, as evidence, look at basically any article on the wuhan virus.
...Most cars would be banished from Manhattan.
Of course that's how they'd do it. Of course they don't just focus on making their alternatives as good as possible then let people make a free choice about their transit, and reduce the number of cars by increasing the quality of mass transit. And the beautiful part of that method is that you by definition don't make the situation worse- if you fuck up and don't make public transit much better, people can just continue to drive. No, it's done by banning cars. That's the problem with giving people freedom- they might not behave how you want. So you'd get the result you want by banning the results you don't like. And if it makes things worse instead of better because your public transport still sucks, the public has no choice, cars are still banned.
They approach traffic the same way they approach speech. Remember when the internet was new, and there were all these left-wing professors talking about how great it was that the downtrodden masses would finally have a voice? Yeah, and then those people started speaking, and some of them said things those professors didn't agree with, then suddenly the left didn't support freedom of expression on the internet any more.
PAU’s proposal would not ban all motor vehicles, just privately owned cars. There would still be delivery trucks, paratransit, emergency vehicles, and taxicabs and rideshare cars, if you needed them.
So it's not actually about reducing traffic at all, because people would just shift to using rideshares and taxis. Have they actually thought this through at all?
More than a century of car ads and a good deal of hagiographic cultural propaganda has done a job on a lot of us
This is retarded. First, someone at the NYT calling something else propaganda is pretty rich. Second, "more than a century ... has done a job on a lot of us"? Yeah, the average person has seen a century worth of car ads, I guess? I'm always seeing ads for the model T, myself.
Uber and Lyft once promised to reduce traffic through car-pooling. In fact, ride-hailing services have greatly worsened traffic in many big cities.
...Which your proposal is not banning.
Imagine you’d like to transport 50 people from one end of Manhattan to the other. If you were to send them by bus, you could stuff everyone in a single bus car — taking up around 450 square feet of road space, about the size of a tiny studio apartment. But if you were going to send 50 people by automobile, you’d need a lot more road. For 50 people, each driving alone, you’d need 2,750 square feet of space — basically a McMansion of roadway to transport 50 fat cats.
Of course it all comes down to hatred of the rich, this is the NYT. Also note the entire argument is moronic: 1 bus goes from one place to one other place, in series. 50 cars go from 50 places to 50 other places. Does this guy have a brain?
There’s more road for cars than there is sidewalk for pedestrians.
Are the people on the sidewalks the same size as cars? Are the sidewalks as constricted for traffic as the roads are? Or is this factoid totally worthless?
The amount of space devoted to cars in Manhattan is not just wasteful, but, in a deeper sense, also unfair to the millions of New Yorkers who have no need for cars. “It really does feel like there is a silent majority that doesn’t get any real say in how the public space is used,” Chakrabarti told me.
It's called democracy, fucker. Your alleged car-hating majority is allowed to vote, too.
New York’s drivers are essentially being given enormous tracts of land for their own pleasure and convenience.
That anyone can fucking drive on! They're public goddamn roads! It's not like people who don't drive aren't allowed to, they just choose not to! This is not "unjust"! Hey, here's an example that works even better than this: Basically only left-wing radio listeners listen to NPR, yet it still receives federal funding. Since this guy is against public funds being given to things only a percentage of the population uses, he supports defunding NPR, right?
“it’s in your best interest for walking, biking and public transit to be as attractive as possible for everyone else — because that means you’re going to be able to drive easier.” Indeed, PAU’s plan bears this out. Banning private cars on Manhattan would reduce traffic by as much as 20 percent on routes that start and end within New York’s other boroughs
No, what that guy says and what you're saying are totally different. He's talking about making public transit better to attract people into using it, you're talking about banning private transport. His version makes things better, yours probably makes things worse.
The most polluted air in New York hangs over the Bronx and Queens, in communities largely populated by immigrants and people of color.
The NYT to white people: We genuinely don't give a fuck if you die, we only care about immigrants and "people of color".
(We can’t even get some people to agree to wear masks to stop the spread of a devastating pandemic.)
Because it wouldn't "stop" it, and because it's not devastating. You're retarded.
Given these threats, how can American cities continue to justify wasting such enormous tracts of land on death machines?
LOL, so much for car ads being "propaganda". Fucking "death machines", get a grip.
As of Monday, August 17, Calhoun County has reported 741 confirmed cases of the virus and two deaths over the course of the pandemic, according to the state's health department.
Two deaths! Two people died! In the entire county! Over half a year! One or both of whom were almost certainly in nursing homes and near death anyway! The horror! Better track the movements and medical status of every single college-age student, for whom the wuhan virus has a practically zero fatality rate, make them ask for permission to leave campus, and kick them out of school if they act like they're an adult and not in elementary school.
If we ignored this problem and allowed these people to act like normal humans, we might have enough deaths to add up to a single traffic accident. On second thought, better ban cars.
That said, if you flipped the genders, he'd be totally mainstream. Just taking a quick look at the front page here, take this equal pay article. They're literally taking the fact that white men work harder than black women, and making that into a claim that black women are oppressed.
(I assume I don't need to explain in depth about how those numbers they're citing don't control for profession choice, number of hours worked per week, number of years spent in the workforce, amount of time taken off work, amount of education in the field, etc. at a place like this, but suffice to say, all equal pay class complaints like this are complete lies.)
The point is, taking something that's actually about how men are treated worse than women (men are expected to be breadwinners and women judge men by their bank accounts, therefore men sacrifice more of their time and happiness to make money than women do, then proceed to give that money to the women in their lives) and twisting it to look like it's actually about oppression of women is absolutely standard practice in the mainstream. If he just targeted men instead of women, they'd give him an honorary professorship in Women's Studies and a book deal and let him write for The Guardian.
In case anyone missed it, he promised to select a woman months ago, during the debates against Sanders, I think. Not "I picked the best candidate for the job and she was a woman", but "I will pick a woman and it doesn't matter if she's not actually as competent as a man, equal opportunity doesn't matter". I know most people here already know the modern left hates equal opportunity and embraces racism and sexism at every chance and actively fights against laws against race and gender-based discrimination, but this was, and continues to be, an unusually high profile example of it.
I remember a long time ago hearing a radio program about ethics in news, a panel run by a few of the more significant reporters in the area. A guy mentioned an example of a woman who wrote a story about some issue about a giraffe at a zoo, then she signed a petition about whatever the issue was, then did another story a few days later. He went on to say that he considered even this to be going too far to ethically continue reporting on the story- that she had become personally involved in the story, and was now too compromised to continue. Just by signing a petition about some incredibly inconsequential puff piece.
I sometimes think back to that. The equivalent here would be if she had sex with the giraffe and had a history of saying the people running the zoo were basically responsible for the downfall of civilization and deserved to be put in a tank with sharks, and everyone acts like that's fine reporting.
Even that is implying that gender and sex aren't the same thing. Gender is just what we call sex in humans. Every human male is a man, every man is a male.