[ad_1]
“15-Minute City” Conspiracies Have It Backwards
[ad_2]
View Reddit by TheKoolAidMan6 – View Source
[ad_1]
“15-Minute City” Conspiracies Have It Backwards
[ad_2]
View Reddit by TheKoolAidMan6 – View Source
I don’t think I fully understand how transformative cars have been, and how recent they really are. We built their infrastructure with boom zeal, but the long term maintenance of so much parking lots, dead space, and roads upon roads has been costly. I think we would do ourselves a services to consider how new housing will interact with traffic, public transport, and nearby retail. If all we can build is more suburban housing on the edge of town, things will only get more and more expensive.
I don’t want to be trapped in a train or bus with the ferals.
Do they, though? “It’s a complete coincidence that our benign eco-friendly urban planning comes with all these tyrannical measures, and saying one is the other is conspiracizing” is the sort of thing that comes 15 minutes before the tyrannical measures.
If you want to gain trust, it’s very simple, ridiculously simple: ask for the good parts but decry the bad parts, promise they won’t happen, set it down in law if you can. It’s not even compromise, it’s about proving you’re honest about what you want. But that doesn’t happen, and the hesitation to do so sends a very clear signal.
But how will they reassure themself they have big pee-pee if they can’t drive F150 for half hour to get to nearest Walmart?
I really thought I heard unreal tournament 99 music in the first 30 seconds of this video.
The “15-Minutre City” conspiracy is straight out the right-wing playbook. As in “Anything that may benefit a stranger is bad and a reduction of my ‘rights’.”
Nothing in the “15-Minute City” concept stops you from driving, it just means that residences and shops be grouped together so can get what you need without having to drive.
The by far easiest way to tyrannically control the population would be to control the gas stations. There are usually no more than 2 for a medium sized town. Control the gas stations and you completely control all car movement – which is all movement in a world without public transport and bikes. It’s a measure the government could carry out within 2 hours if they actually wanted to go full tyranny. What are those car freedom idiots going to do then? Suck the leftover gas out of their tanks so one car can leave the city?
Video Summary:
The video discusses the controversial perception of 15-minute cities and their perceived infringement upon personal freedom. The speaker argues that driving, while appear to be a more practical option, is actually less free due to government control and regulations required to operate a vehicle. The use of cars as the main mode of transportation in cities has limitations, particularly when trying to move large numbers of people. Local governments strictly regulate density and mandate stores to overbuild parking lots, leading to a fear of government control. The speaker argues that support for car-centric cities is based on a fear of government control and leads to dependencies on oil companies and authoritarian oil cartels. The video concludes that transit-oriented neighborhoods offer more freedom and sustainability.
Its funny how different strands of conservatism pull in different directions. The 15 minute city conspiracy (which is just rebranded NIMBY) versus the “Retvrn / Embrace tradition” movement working in direct opposition.
15 minute city being how we built every city on earth prior to 1920.
People are going to be forced into living in walkable cities anyways as cars steadily become more and more unaffordable
ill gladly live in a 15 minute city where everything is laid out with thought foresight and intelligence. suburbs are trash and we waste so much. i have lived in a big city which isnt ideal sometimes, then i lived out in the sticks and there is nothing near and it is awful. No restaurants or entertainment. just getting groceries is a to do. i can not wait to get out of here. having all your needs in close proximity is the way to go and will save you so much in the end.
“It’s a crazy conspiracy theory that 15 minute cities would issue fines for traveling outside your zone, in your car.”
That’s a strawman. The writers for the video didn’t need to strawman the conspiracy theorists because that just gives them more fuel because they malign our side as dishonest (and some very clearly are such as the producers of this video).
In reality, some cities ARE making their cities more undrivable in some areas. They are making it hostile to drivers on purpose:
[https://www.fastcompany.com/90321627/these-8-cities-are-taking-bold-steps-to-get-rid-of-cars](https://www.fastcompany.com/90321627/these-8-cities-are-taking-bold-steps-to-get-rid-of-cars)
It’s not a crazy conspiracy theory. That’s the entire point. And these policies/cities result in people not needing a car. So what happens? “You’re kind of stuck in that city, aren’t you?” That’s where the conspiracy really comes from. You can rent a moving van if you want to move so the argument falls flat with any modicum of scrutiny. But while you’re stuck living there, everything is just so much better with the city reclaimed for the people and not cars.
​
​
Edit – I’ve seen this comment go to +12 to -7. This appears to be quite the controversial comment. Read this comment where I expanded on this topic and made my point more clear:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1898pyf/comment/kbrdqjs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1898pyf/comment/kbrdqjs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
My suggestion is to try to steelman your opponents, NOT strawman them. Represent your opponents’ argument as strongly as possible and then argue against it. Acknowledge the positives of your opponents’ arguments, too. Make them feel like you think their argument is pretty solid and compliment it where possible. THEN make an argument against that steelman as kindly as possible. Do NOT be condescending or insulting no matter how shitty your opponents are. You will convince far more of those types using this approach. This is true of any topic that is hotly debated like this.
Especially acknowledge where they are correct.
Something like this, “Yes, most of us are democratic socialists, Marxists, or communists. Yes, we really are trying to use the government to restrict the use of cars to specific zones^1. And we really do want you to be fined if you drive a car in a car-banned zone. We promise we are not doing it from a malicious point of view. We are trying to create as much freedom and safety as possible. We want you to travel around these cities safely, quickly, and save everyone – especially the government – as much money as possible. Here is why these are not bad ideas and capitalists as well as socialists alike will like our ideas. We have research…” And then make your argument.
But not acknowledging the truth in your opponents arguments and even using a strawman of their argument, you just make their arguments look stronger and you fuel the conspiracy theories. “Why are they lying about their intentions and why are they misrepresenting our point? SEEE? It’s a conspiracy! They are trying to hide it while lying right to our faces!”
​
^1 Argument intro needs more work because I’d mention it vastly creates more freedom for literally every other traveler type in the city while only restricting one traveler type.
How the fuck can anyone listen to this narrator? It’s startlingly bad.
75 percent of urban land use in America is for cars. It’s a waste of space
Conservatives have no beliefs- they are contrarians. Whatever the correct, moral, beneficial way to shape society they will take the opposite position.
Fuck that! it’s a prison complex!
This is actually a way to frame certain subjects with certain political views. Almost like out maneuvering the crazy. Or out crazy the crazy.
I recall when the pandemic hit and vaccine rollouts started occurring. The number of people making comments such as ‘this is just the governments way to //insert conspiracy here// such as; “it’s just a way to track you, or, its to heard the weak and kill them off” etc etc… ad nauseam.
I found it quite interesting flipping the script on them, saying something along the lines of, “If the government released the virus to ‘thin the heard’ and then released a vaccine to help prevent it. Do you think the government wants to kill the people who protest the vaccine or the people who comply? I’d rather take the vaccine and be alive. Best to be a wolf among the sheep than a dead wolf.”
That usually caught them off guard. Whether it actually got them to think about the vaccine or not. Idk 🤷♂️. But it was nice to see some squirm and reflect on what to do.
TLDR: You can’t logically get someone out of a situation where they didn’t use logic to get themselves there. So use their illogical thinking and out maneuver them. And this video did a great of that.
This has to be the most retarded conspiracy theory in recent times. This is on the same level as flat earth
No the fear is not unfounded.
15-minute walkable cities are a great idea.
BUT!! This should be achieved through urban planning they way Korea and Japan do it.
Not just set up toll gates and cameras like what London did.
If you limit people’s ability to move but don’t rebuild all the infrastructure away from cars then you’ve created a prison.
Obviously, these folks haven’t listened to “Red Barchetta” by Rush, clear evidence that they’re not real Canadians but talking heads from the global world order.
😉
Those aren’t conspiracy theorists, they’re narcissists that feel better by their secret knowledge nobody else has.
The best approach to them is not to give them the spotlight they so desperately crave.
Fellas, is it imprisonment to be able to walk places?
I was expecting them to mention the changes coming from the “15 minute city” ordnances which the commenters were referencing. The plan is to auto-toll people who choose to drive far from their town using cameras, right?
Its not like you cant leave a 15 minute city. Its pretty hard to leave a prison.
I made it about 30 seconds. is this just AI voice?
So I lived in both US Bay Area suburbs and ‘communist’ (Vietnam) regime 15 minute cities back and forth. There’s pros and cons of both. But overall the high rise multi tower with lots of retail , cafes and groceries on the bottom floor beats out suburban living. So much easier to meet up with friends. Better experience if you work remotely, you can still people watch and do in person meetings at cafes if needed. Grocery and food delivery is incredibly fast. Ride share works better (faster and cheaper). You end up buying less stuff you think you need. Noise and running into annoying neighbors was never an issue with how things are built and designed modern days.
the amount of people “supporting” this is insane. pretending the WEF is here for your benefit, is also insane. they’ve literally said they want the country broken into districts that the “general population” won’t be able to leave without a permit. these are unelected officials planning on telling you where you can and cannot travel within your own country. this isn’t a theory, there’s several WEF interviews explaining smart cities and 15 minute cities. claiming the rich will have freedom to travel but the working class will not. this isn’t a theory, it’s been stated several times at the WEF.
i don’t affiliate with any side of the political parties. so claiming this is a “right wing theory” really says a lot about the current narrative. left vs right is stupid and meant to divide.
i’m assuming you’re all going to say CBDC is good for us too? ridiculous.
Nice, very impressive. Now tell me where you would raise your kids if you had any.
Answer: the suburbs