I think the point is to poison the well. When people point out an issue with cars, it isn't because they're using evidence-based reasoning, it's because they're just a bunch of nasty car haters (and communists.)
Contrary to OP's assertions, I actually do enjoy cars, but I don't think they work well at all in the city. I think there are better solutions out there (Japan is a leading example.)
I am not trying to poison the well. I just can't help but observe how often people here post things anti-car and then ascribe all sorts of societal problems under the sun to the fact that the United States is so car-centric. I've also noticed that the car-hostile folks have a tendency to assume malice whenever someone defends the automobile. I mean right now I was just accused of poisoning the well.
The GP mentioned that people here are bike-hostile, but you don't see dozens of submissions from StrongRoads about how terrible bicycles are and how they're responsible for toxic individualism.
>you don't see dozens of submissions from StrongRoads about how terrible bicycles are and how they're responsible for toxic individualism.
I think the reason we don't see dozens of submissions about how terrible bicycles are is because they don't kill car drivers to even remotely the same degree. I mean, come on.
You absolutely see bike-hostile people; they just couch their rhetoric in "the risk is worth the reward", while usually being a driver themselves so experiencing much more of the reward than the risk. It's a well-known phenomenon that when you encounter viewpoints that oppose your own that they will stand out to you more than viewpoints that agree with you, hence why we all see opposition to our ideas everywhere we go.
Does your little observation, here, have any bearing on the article? Does it make the facts less factual? Does it make the numbers less number-y?
Hell, I tried to go back to the top-level comment to figure out what might've triggered you, but your original comment is a non sequitur as far as I can tell.
This comment is an illustration of what I am "triggered" about. I disagree with the article because of the tone it uses, the assumptions it makes, and what it ascribes to our 'culture'. So when I see yet another post that is so obviously biased and rhetorically underhanded (toxic individualism, implying a total lack of empathy) I can't help but point out this is a trend here on HN.
>"Does your little observation, here, have any bearing on the article?"
>"what might've triggered you"
My "little observation", is pretty condescending. So does the triggering comment. Again, illustrates my experience when having a dialogue with car-hostile people. You want to engage me on facts and numbers but you're using rhetorical swipes to try and discredit me.
> I disagree with the article because of the tone it uses
This is not a valid reason to disagree about the article. The feelings the tone caused may also cause you to misjudge the rest of the evidence provided and may limit your ability to form a judgement based strictly on the facts presented.
In an ideal world people would be easily able to dismiss any aspect of an article that isn't purely rational or feelings related. I believe there is something to be said for being critical about what is being presented when the authors bias is so clearly displayed. Especially when we are talking about a subject that is so multivariate and chaotic as society and how it is impacted by cars, city design, and how it impacts the economy, etc.
Contrary to OP's assertions, I actually do enjoy cars, but I don't think they work well at all in the city. I think there are better solutions out there (Japan is a leading example.)