this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
261 points (96.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

9602 readers
990 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Chicago is held hostage by a 75 year lease of its parking meters to Morgan Stanley, impacting public transport and alternate transportation funding.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry, this is probably my neurodivergence speaking, but that's not evidence that Climate Town pulled from that book.

Listen, it's not even relevant, because it's not even the intent of your original comment. That could just be like, "Hey guys, if you think that's crazy, you should check out this book that goes into this happening not only in Chicago but across the entire United States." But you're insistence that that book IS the source is just completely throwing me. Why? I guess I don't understand why the need to exaggerate the connection between the two. They both cover the same topic, that was all the in you needed to plug that book/article.

And your reply comment is an appeal to originality and an appeal to quality. It's fallacious and irrelevant to my point. And kind of disappointing that you're disparaging good content to make your thing look better.