![[meme] Being forced to drive isn't freedom — it's a government-mandated lifetime subscription to oil](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/13b1a771-76a5-4af4-b41f-4c22fc9165a4.webp){kind=link}
Image transcript:
The “what if you wanted to go to heaven, but god said ____” meme template, but here it says, “What if you wanted to walk to get groceries, but city planners said DRIVE”. The last panel is an image of a massive freeway full of cars.
Image transcript:
The “what if you wanted to go to heaven, but god said ____” meme template, but here it says, “What if you wanted to walk to get groceries, but city planners said DRIVE”. The last panel is an image of a massive freeway full of cars.
You’re arguing for having a car in a thread about needing a car
It’s not about banning cars, it’s about designing places to make them not necessary
Where I live you can walk to the local shops
Loads of people drive, but you don’t have to. This is good.
Exactly. There’s a pattern I’ve noticed of people interpreting “car dependency reduces freedom” as “car ownership reduces freedom”. But the point you, I, and many others are trying to make is that building our cities in such a way that no one has a choice but to drive everywhere is counter to the idea of freedom.
Freedom is the freedom to choose how you want to get about your city and not be coerced into owning and maintaining a (rather expensive) vehicle just to get groceries. People want choices.
People interpret it that way because the community is called “fuck cars” and some users are very toxic and don’t present the nuances very well.
A lot of people support better public transportation. But nobody is being won over to the movement with antagonism and name calling.
There’s some good discussions too, I get it, but it’s no surprise that misunderstanding occurs.
(I like your username, except now I have the song in my head)