Poor people aren't driving SUVs around downtown Paris in the first place. I do not weep for nonexistent people.
It's actually incredible that you have people on fuck cars that are AGAINST raising the prices of car parking. Anything that's done to make driving more expensive and less subsidized is anti-poor apparently. Literally indistinguishable from pro-car concern trolling.
So what's your argument then? You're against a tax on people publicly flaunting their wealth, because it will... prevent poor people from flaunting their wealth? Lmao? Wealth that poor people don't have?
You have got to be American right? The right for one to drive their big-ass SUV downtown is not something the Parisian working-class is concerned about!
Working-class Parisians are not buying and driving big-ass SUVs downtown anyways! No poor people are being harmed by this!
Please show me the mythical poor people who are driving around downtown Paris in their SUVs. Please, show me one! They don't exist! Please stop pearl clutching over the plight of the mythical poor Parisian SUV driver!
making it so that rich pricks can prance around in them is just rewarding privilege.
Please show me some of the poor people who are driving around downtown Paris in SUVs (hint: there is no one)
It's incredible that you can't wrap your head around the fact that creating a tax that only rich people can afford makes SUVs a privilege for the rich.
SUVs for Poor People 2024 - Why should only rich people drive SUVs?
No one should drive SUVs. Making SUVs something only rich people can afford reduces the total amount of SUVs on the road. I'm sure that you would prefer Singapore over Dallas, right?
It's doubly funny that you yourself already admitted that it's only rich people who own SUVs anyways meaning that there's likely to be little tangible effect from this.
You'd be surprised at the irrationality of rich people who spend big bucks on an expensive car but balk at tripled parking prices.
Here's an anecdote: I personally know a Lexus driver who refuses to drive downtown because the parking is too expensive.
What I'm arguing against is making SUVs an acceptable privilege for rich people.
The proposal doesn't do anything akin to "making SUVs an acceptable privilege for rich people", it applies a triple sin tax on SUVs. This is better than if there were no sin tax at all.
the fart particles are still there though
As a person who rides bikes a lot, I strongly prefer sitting at a stoplight behind an electric vehicle over a gasoline vehicle. Tailpipe emissions matter a great deal even though EVs don't completely solve the problem of cars creating air pollution.
Of course, I still prefer no cars over electric cars.
I am for a total car ban in city centers around the world. However, this is not a policy that activists today can seriously propose to a city council: consider that even in the ground zero of the Urbanist movement, Amsterdam, cars are still allowed in the city center.
Even though I would prefer a total car ban, I am not going to oppose intermediate steps like a triple tax on oversized vehicles, because I'm not going to let my dreams of a perfect city get in the way of improving society somewhat.
Nice straw man buddy. What we're actually talking about merits of making SUVs a privilege for the rich or banning them.
SUVs have always been a privilege for the rich. This policy reduces the amount of people who can afford to drive SUVs downtown. It is a net good despite your aesthetic objections against it.
A world where everyone can afford to drive SUVs is not better than a world where only a few can afford to drive SUVs. The world where everyone can afford to drive SUVs is the American suburb, where car ownership is so heavily subsidized to the point that even poor people drive SUVs. Do you think this is better than Hong Kong or Singapore, where only rich people can afford to drive SUVs?
I'm not, but keep on straw manning there. Seems to be what you excel at.
This is literally your position. Your logic is completely indistinguishable from that of pro-car concern trolling. There is an in-between world between Dallas and utopia. There needs to be an in-between step between car hell and bicycle utopia. Expensive parking is a needed step in the right direction. To refuse to take the first step out of car hell, however imperfect it might be, is to advocate for an indefinite wallowing in the pits of shit.
Nope, but I've already realized that having a serious discussion with you isn't possible. Bye.
And you are simply a deeply unserious person who says they want something but in actuality are advocating for the exact opposite. Good riddance!
In your bizarro world, there are actually no in-between steps between carbon hell and green utopia. Until carbon dioxide is banned, people should just be allowed to emit CO2 for free.
I'm so sorry that you cannot comprehend a world that's in-between "everyone drives SUVs" and "only a few drive SUVs" and understand why the latter world is better than the former world. When you advocate against policy that improves society somewhat on the basis that it doesn't create utopia, you are advocating in favor of the status-quo.
No hard feelings.
I'm still using NewPipe x Sponsorblock and haven't had any issues with it.
That's interesting. I started to have issues loading Youtube videos a few months ago and had to switch back to regular NewPipe. (I'm using Tubular now.)
Any idea why the change? It looks more or less identical.
I'm not sure why the app got rebranded to Tubular. I think it's because the author has ambitions for their fork beyond just Sponsorblock and Return Youtube Dislike and didn't want to just append another feature to the app name every time they add a new feature.
Opposing the war on cars because you weep for the mythical working-poor Parisian SUV driver