[andrewzah]

Who is “we”?

It’s not surprising or creepy that people focus on what they actually can control.

None of us realistically can change the fact that America is built around roads. Not everyone can work from home.

People drive not because they want to, but because they have to. Criticizing that is a highly privileged take.

[epistasis]

"We" is our society and laws and common discussion topics and social mores, etc.

Let's keep on using the "creepy" adjective here, because I think I applies especially to this comment, even more than the prior one.

Who sets the laws for how buildings are built and whether we have to drive or not? Local communities (at least in the US). So people can get involved, change what is legal and not legal to build, and advocate for it on the local level.

That's what I have been doing for the last five or so years. And what I find realt creepy about the experience is how people will go out of their way to criticize others for small, meaningless actions like reducing single waste plastic, but go ballistic at the idea that we should allow some people to live in a way that doesn't force them to drive every single day and for every trip out of the house.

> People drive not because they want to, but because they have to.

If that is the case, then why don't they make their voices heard? I certainly don't hear anybody voicing that when we do have a chance to allow communities to be built that don't force driving. Instead I head person after person after person demanding that housing and mixed use communities be banned.

At one of the meetings I was at, trying to advocate for a mixed use building, some commenter mentioned an aside of having all single use drinking containers have a tax. None, not a single one, of the board members expressed enthusiasm for this mixed use building that, as a single building, would have far bigger impact than banning all single use cups in the city. But boy did the board take up the idea of taxing single use containers, and not two years later we have a $0.25 charge when you get a to go cup at a coffee shop, but we still have a huuuuuuuuuge fight over every single bit of environment saving buildings.

> Criticizing that is a highly privileged take.

That's utter BS, and a commonly used dodge by people who don't want any change. Of course we can criticize a system, particularly as we change it. Saying that it's "privileged" to point out that people are forced to drive, which is what I said, is utter nonsense. And frankly, extremely creepy.

People are really creepy about cars. They will excuse them, apologize for them, ignore all the damage they do, and even criticize people that point out these massive flaws, before people will admit that maybe we should st least let some people live without them.

[andrewzah]

The fact of the matter is that the US is laid out in a way that cars are necessary for most places. Even if you actually get people to vote and participate in their local politics, that does not change how things are already laid out. It's not going to magically fix neighborhoods being 10-20 mins driving away from grocery stores and businesses.

I -want- to reduce car usage, but I'm also realistic.

"If that is the case, then why don't they make their voices heard?"

Some people do. See strong towns for example. Yeah, there's also NIMBY-ism. Turns out people working minimum wage jobs (who have to commute because they can't afford to live downtown) don't have as much time or energy to participate in local politics as well-off folks. But let's keep on blaming people!!

Also, I'm not sure if you understand what creepy means. Even if your points may be correct, I'm disinclined to engage with someone who calls everyone who doesn't exactly agree with them "creepy".

[coryrc]

> At one of the meetings I was at, trying to advocate for a mixed use building

Thank you for trying to make the world better.

I try to make the same case as you. I think people get off on the controlling part (banning plastic bags) and just use environmentalism as a cover.