view the rest of the comments
Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
You know whose hurt by high prices? Poor people. Guess whose not hurt by them? Rich people.
Exactly. Based on this, and based on OP's other responses, OP is basically saying "I want poor people to suffer so rich people can make more money" (off of new car sales with more efficient engines, or electric).
So my question for them is: is the income divide not great enough? If not, when will it be?
That's mainly a problem for car-brained people. There are other modes of transportation, you know.
No, there aren't.
Plenty of places have no other option.
have no other option yet
People like you remind me of evangelical Christians.
You are all perfectly content to have other people suffer in hopes that a wonderful future will emerge.
If you want to suffer, go right ahead. Don't expect other people to be miserable so you can feel superior.
yeah, let's keep things just the way they are and stop hoping that societal changes can be a motor for improvement
all I'm saying is there aren't alternatives YET, but situations like this could create a positive change in mindset and eventually infrastructure as well. fine by me if you want to be a glass-half-empty kind of person
Yea, because alternate options just pop up over night.
There are many regions where alternative forms of transport aren't very viable. Nearly non-existent public transit and bike infrastructure because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind. Zoning requirements that mean everything is spread out and impossible to walk between. Possibly even combined with terrible weather for much of the year.
Places where making changes to fix those issues, increase public options, etc. are met with stiff political backlash, not necessarily from the car people, but just simple conservatives or regressives that don't think any money should be spent on that infrastructure, often simply because it's not something they'd use.
but, and I realise this might be a bit utopian, the more people (have to) use alternative modes of transportation, the more the need for better infrastructure will grow. domino effect and all that
Oh definitely, but making those changes requires funding them. And that's virtually impossible to get voters to approve in some places currently.
Which is why the pain has to come first and therefore high oil prices are good.
They really don't require a lot of money. In an emergency, you can create a bike lane with nothing but a few traffic cones. Then later you can spend the money and put in a permanent install.
sometimes I'm really glad that I'm European
Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars. Places that can't fit car traffic, etc. so alternatives are either a requirement or already a higher priority than destroying existing infrastructure to make it fit.
First of all, American cities also existed before cars.
Second, many European cities were rebuilt from rubble after WWII to accommodate cars.
That factor is not nearly the excuse you think it is.
plus, certain places - like the city where I live, for example - opt for infrastructure and traffic rules that favour cyclists and pedestrians. that also helps
Europe was demolished during the world wars. Both the US and Europe mostly consist of post-WW2 buildings. Europe just chose to build more sensibly.
Building a city wrong doesn't mean "alternative forms of transport aren't very viable;" it means the city was built wrong and that must be corrected.
And make no mistake, that is very viable: the Netherlands already did it (it was not always like that: it was rebuilt for cars after WWII and then rebuilt again starting in the 1970s when they realized they'd fucked up). Paris is doing it right now. It is not actually hard, and it is not actually expensive -- at least not compared to the long-term societal costs of continuing car-dependency.
This is a straight-up lie, BTW. All the cities -- including "newer" sunbelt ones, like LA or Houston or Atlanta -- were in fact built for walking and streetcars first, and then demolished to accommodate cars.
Its true! I strongly believe in public transport. Particularly the transport that is also dependent on oil... Where I live though, if I wanted to get to work without my car it would change my trip time from 45m - 1.5h to about 2h-3h. Each way. I don't feel like spending 6h travelling so it's not really a choice for many of us.
Are car brained people going to be the only ones affected by rising food prices due to an increase in transportation costs? How about those that don't have any other means but to drive to work to make a living because public transportation isn't available and buying an EV isn't an option?
It's not just an issue for car brained people, it's also an issue for narrow minded people, such as yourself.
Oh no, rising food prices could be real. But that doesn’t mean other things should be expensive as well. There is always a chance to cut personal costs elsewhere - like transportation, for instance.
What I do believe is that it could be the thing that’s needed to push for better infrastructure and public transportation, but that won’t happen if you just look at it as if you’re only a victim and can’t do anything about it. If people can get vocal and push their (local) government to look at alternatives, you could achieve a lot. If you just want to sulk in a corner acting like “oh it’s bad and there’s nothing that can be done”, then you’re the narrow minded one. Look at the opportunity it brings and that could be solved in the medium/long term. Okay, you have a short term problem, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be solved. You said in another comment “because alternate options just pop up over night”. No, they don’t, but if you expect every problem to be fixed over night, you’re gonna have a very difficult life.
It's a problem right now and getting worse. Long term goals for change are good, but in the best circumstances that takes years of planning and implementation.
People can cut personal costs, but that shouldn't have to be done. That's simply a work around for people to survive, but we're here to live. I could turn my heat down to 50° in the house, but I shouldn't have to live in discomfort to make ends meet. I could eat just rice and beans but I should be able to afford a balanced diet. Some of us can't just cut costs on transportation because there aren't any other options. Saying to just costs is a lot like victim blaming.
Yeah, in a major metropolitan area.
Trains are cool! There's like two train tracks that go through town and they only carry freight. There are no passenger trains anywhere around here.
We also have buses. They don't come within 5 miles of me. Also a non-starter.
I guess it's cool to hate cars if you live with your parents, but for those of us with bills to pay, we gotta go get that bread. But uh, have fun with your online gaming or whatever. It's just not sustainable for most of us.
You don't have good public transit because you and your neighbors have chosen not to vote for it. Maybe that will change when gas is $7 a gallon.
The old bait-n-switch with a side of victim blaming. Gotta love it when they pull the rug out from under you and look down at ya like you were never gonna get ahead.
How's the view from that ivory tower?
I graduated in '21, moved in with my gf at the same time, started working (to afford rent and surviving, you know) and bought a house last year. But go off I guess. I have bills to pay and hate cars as the sole method of transportation at the same time, it's amazing! Even have my driver's license since I was 18 (9 years already, how time flies). Crazy concept.
I'll go have fun with reading a good book now. Cheerio!
Oil products are used in a lot more things than just cars. But, you're right. I'll just ride a bike next time I have to travel 70 miles for one of my regular gigs.
You don’t think poor people suffer from climate change? Or are you a science denier?
Comically ignorant
Yes it is comically ignorant to pretend more people won’t suffer worse from climate change than from high fuel prices.
Comically ignorant. Lol the edits
Unless you drive a much bigger car than you need to (i.e. that guy who drives a ford 350 to the office), there's probably not much to save on engine efficiency. Maybe a liter/100km
You know who could hurt rich people? Poor people.
You know who hurt people? Hurt people.
The cycle doesn't end unless you end it. Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
You know who hurts people? Greedy rich people. It seemed fitting when they dragged Mussolini through the streets.
That's what they tell you. Funny, though, that nothing changes - for better or worse - until the threat of violence enters the picture.
Slavery wasn't ended until the nation was ready for civil war.
Global fascism wasn't stopped until the Nazis were slaughtered.
Peaceful protests are worthless on a small scale, in terms of affecting change. BLM protests, 1% protests, pro-choice protests - all are great for showing unity among your "tribe", but they don't directly change anything.
That's why Trump is cracking down with ICE and weaponizing the DOJ. That's why we see headlines like "Six Antifa protesters convicted of terroristic threats". Keep the protests small, keep the average Joe scared of taking to the streets, stoke the fear of violence erupting and legal entanglements.
Isn't that one of the key definitions of fascism?
It's a key tenant of several social conflict theories.
I'm no expert, but the way I understand it, many early sociologists focused on the systems and structures of society. They emphasized the order and structure of "civilized" societies, usually with a bias toward European societies.
Then people like Marx and Weber came along and proposed that these societies were not "civilized", but rather oppressive. They pointed to class struggles and oligarchs. Other sociologists began to highlight the struggles of marginalized groups like women and people of color. They followed the money and power.
SO, as an example, we use a landlord and his tenant. We could describe the relationship as mutually beneficial. The tenant needed a roof over his head, the landlord provided one. The system functions as intended, benefiting both parties. But we might look deeper and see that housing prices are inflated. The tenant can't afford a house, but the landlord owns 20 properties. The tenant wants to own property, but he's shut out. The system is still functioning as intended, but the intention is to make the rich person more money and keep the poor person oppressed.
Obviously, there's no hard and fast rules. There's no final answer.
Sure there are infinitely more people who suffer from this than people who benefit.
But people have a limited amount of energy to do things or even think. I believe with people who actually have to work for a living, most of the energy goes towards immediate necessities: the daily tasks, working, getting food on the table, paying bills etc. A huge amount of energy and even time is consumed by stress alone that results from living like this. The tiny amount of energy and time people have for passions and socialising are probably spent on those or resting, or just escapism.
How can people living and feeling like this actually change things ? I'd assume massive systemic change needs consistent mass movements.
People would need to have time and energy to think and act. We'd also need willingness to do those things. It feels like not thinking and not acting consumes less energy and time, and therefore is the more likely choice.
If it is possible to change things for the better for the vast majority of people, why aren't they changing ?
Things aren't bad enough yet. Watching the political scene for the past 10 years has been like a frog slowly acclimating itself to a boiling pot of water that eventually kills it.
Also, power IS power. Do you find yourself wondering why North Koreans put up with their Dear Leader? Or how the USSR was able to control half of Germany, along with Ukraine, Belarus and a dozen other nations?
You've been taught that in America, power resides with the people. But it never did. Power always follows the money. Those who own property have the power. It's always been this way, a struggle against all the greedy, power-hungry fucks who can't get enough.
I'm hoping some of the poor people start to realize how dependent they are on gas though. They've been too comfortable with subsidized gas for too long, with us taxpayers all paying to lower gas prices artificially. It's time they notice and start thinking that maybe it's time to think about carpooling or buying smaller cars.
A lot of people in the US still have states that don't allow mail-in voting, and can't get off work to vote. Those people are poor.
A lot of poor people voted against this. Didn't matter- they still got it.
They're going to suffer heavily. We can all try to do what we can to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but consumers have not had enough power to do anything meaningful at any point in my lifetime.
Rich people will still technically be affected, but yeah they aren't going to go hungry.
Me: 🤔this could at least trigger uprising of working class.. Me, after 30s more thinking: 😪well, I thought so as well, as I learned that trumpet got elected..