Read on Twitter
as i like to say, "restructure our built environment + transpo systems to provide safe, cheape, accessible, and eco-friendly ways to get around and thus make cars unnecessary, starting first with dense urban areas" won't fit on a sticker https://twitter.com/GAYTOWNS69/status/1343989849766809600
a few thoughts on the recent meta-discourse around the slogan "ban cars":
1) no city govs or grassroots orgs are actually advocating to ban cars as a serious policy proposal
2) "ban cars" obviously doesn't mean "ban cars right now and keep everything else the same"
1) no city govs or grassroots orgs are actually advocating to ban cars as a serious policy proposal
2) "ban cars" obviously doesn't mean "ban cars right now and keep everything else the same"
3) slogans, by definition, lack nuance. getting angry about this shows a misunderstanding of their purpose: to be catchy, memorable, & (in the case of activism), polemical. this does not preclude further discussion of the broader issues at hand. i also now hate the word "nuance".
4) "ban cars" is a prompt to help us envision what our cities and lives could look like if cars were no longer the dominant mode of transportation. it is not a fully-baked policy proposal, nor an attack on anyone who currently has to drive because they have no other options
