Discussion
A: You can't complain about Y affecting the climate when you drive a car.
Me: I don't own a car.
A: Well it is ok for those who are priviledged and can afford to be without a car. Some of us *need* a car.
Me: Oh, sure, I would benefit in lots of ways (as you do) if I had a car. Life would be made much easier. As it stands I just can't do a bunch of stuff and am excluded from things. I get deprioritised on foot/bike/bus. It is funny how your advantage has been reframed as me having privilege.
A: You rely on emitting vans and lorries being driven to bring you food/goods.
Me: Yes. We could work out (and already know) ways to do that with fewer emissions. Again, none of this stops us from reducing the impact of Y.
A: But I neeeed to drive. I live in a place without perfect public transport.
Me: OK. So let's make your (and my) public transport better/faster/cleaner/reliable. Let's reduce the need for everything to be built around cars.
A: You are oppressing me and taking my freedom.
Same boat, chose to not own a car. But I am privileged to live in the Netherlands, where for many trips taking the bicycle, bus, train is actually faster / cheaper / better / healthier, than going by car.
@smallcircles I've failed to explain. Sorry
You didn't. Sorry for going tangential.
@smallcircles Perhaps if you hadn't started with "same boat" followed by "chose" and "privileged" it would have come across with different intent?
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
A: Oh so you are against disabled people having cars and you want them confined to their homes?!
Me: No. We could have genuine infrastructure for pedestrians, bike, wheelchairs, and pushchairs, rather than prioritise able-bodied drivers. We can also exempt disabled-drivers from potential restrictions.
A: You are against ambulances.
Me: No. Ambulances clearly can be exempt.
A: You are against poor people.
Me: No. And this was supposed to be about other thing, Y.