• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    People who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere shouldn’t hold back the discussion of public transit and micromobility for the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in areas which are able to maintain that kind of public infrastructure.

    The problem isn’t that these populations aren’t worthy of consideration; it’s that they don’t deserve to get brought up as “Well this doesn’t help me, who lives three miles out of the nearest town in a row of five houses” as a way to shut down discussion of something that would improve the lives of basically everyone. (It would help them too, of course, because it would decongest the streets when they do drive into town; it just wouldn’t obviate their car. Also, people in urban areas are subsidizing the everloving shit out of their infrastructure already to allow them to even live out there in the first place.)

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Are you even reading the messages you reply to? Can I get an unrelated rant too?

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        What are you even talking about? They wrote: “My issue, as someone with their feet in two canoes, as they say, is with the mentality that rural populations are rounding areas [sic] unworthy of discussion or consideration. Broad statements that erase rural existence is alienating to these admittedly small percentages, but is alienating nonetheless.” My entire comment is spent addressing that paragraph. I’m sorry I chose to focus on the core point of their comment?