![](https://lemmy.hogru.ch/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Flemmy.world%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2F1986f6b0-5114-4466-8c2c-2e41d62d40d9.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.hogru.ch/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Flemmy.world%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2F1457718c-43b7-41df-b443-85747c9c5396.jpeg)
embedded machine learning research engineer - georgist - urbanist - environmentalist
The problem is tons of free parking everywhere needlessly sprawls out our cities, makes people drive further, and makes actual green methods of transit (like walking, cycling, and electrified public transit) less viable.
In the long term, maintaining car dependency is fundamentally incompatible with addressing the climate crisis. Removing mandatory parking minimums is a necessary step towards ending car dependency.
Exactly. I’m just trying to reframe dumb NIMBY policies like restrictive zoning and mandatory parking minimums as anti-freedom so as to try to get conservative NIMBYs to maybe be just a little less NIMBY.
Absolutely no one is seriously arguing we allow PFAS chemical plants next to kindergartens or that we remove all building safety codes. Just that restrictive zoning (and other NIMBY land use policies) is stupid, harmful, and we should get rid of it.
You might like single transferrable vote (STV), then. You have districts with several seats in them (preferably ~5), and then do a ranked-choice ballot to select the candidates who will fill those seats. Key advantages over proportional representation are that it maintains the idea of a constituency and that it maintains voting for individual candidates, not just parties.
Downside, of course, is that it’s not as proportional as proportional representation, but it still achieves pretty proportional results. That’s the tradeoff for maintaining constituencies and individual candidates.
This is so true for the housing crisis. Conservative NIMBYs will be like “deregulation good!” and “free market good!”, but then they religiously show up to any and all city hall meetings to rant and rave about how we need to use heavy-handed regulations to protect “historic” parking lots and the “neighborhood character”.
In Bibi’s eyes, every day that Hamas continues to exist is a good day. If Hamas ever ceases to exist, Israelis might go back to questioning his corruption charges.
In 2016, I said half-jokingly that I was moving to Canada if he won. Then he won and now here I am in Canada. Granted, I was a senior in high school when he won and I was already applying to a couple universities in Canada. But definitely was worth it. As many issues as Canada has (cough cough housing crisis), I at least trust it to not descend into fully-fledged fascism any time soon.
Yeah, this is a great example of why I make an effort to specify the government when criticizing countries. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? I call Putin and his government evil but never the Russian people at large. China’s genocide of the Uyghurs? I call Xi Jinping and the CCP evil but never the Chinese people at large. Israel’s apartheid state and ethno-religious cleansing? I call Netanyahu and his government evil but never the Israeli people at large (and certainly not Jews at large).
The allure of treating entire demographics or populaces as a monolith and blaming them for the crimes of their government is exactly why genocidal rhetoric is so dang pervasive, and I won’t abide by it.
(Yes, I will also criticize civilians who actively support these crimes, but I make sure to be clear in distinguishing between them and the rest of the civilian population.)
Ah, but that says not to kill people. It says nothing about killing rats! /s
Seriously, though, that’s exactly why we’re so capable of committing atrocities: we dehumanize each other until we consider it acceptable to kill. Portraying Jews as rats and subhuman is exactly how the Holocaust happened, and portraying Palestinians as subhuman is exactly how Israel is currently doing what they’re doing.
When you’re a thin-skinned fascist conducting ethno-religious cleansing, any criticism must be met with absolute resistance. Fascism requires extreme black-and-white thinking and complete rejection of nuance.
We see the same pattern in the US with the MAGA movement, where even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives like Liz Cheney get demonized for “betraying” their “side”. Facts and nuance are rejected, and the only thing that matters is team loyalty.
Ah yes, a totally normal thing that innocent, non-fascist governments do. Nothing to see here, UN. Certainly no war crimes or ethnic cleansing!
I don’t follow their politics closely, but I still can’t believe Netanyahu clawed his way back into power after basically everyone else in government, even fellow hard right-wingers, banded up to oust him. That, plus him having faced all those corruption charges. Wtf is up with politics in Israel that allowed him to claw his way back in so quickly like some sort of alien parasite?
This is an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the show was very well done (until the plot twist at the end; it had zero foreshadowing and just kinda cheapened the whole show retroactively).
Extremely difficult and uncomfortable to watch? Absolutely. Objectively bad quality show? I don’t think so.
Additionally, most of the world’s Muslims don’t live in the Middle East or North Africa. South and and Southeast Asia combined have by far the largest Muslim population in the world. India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. And the way they practice Islam is quite different from the Middle East and North Africa. According to Wikipedia, there are about 241 million in Pakistan, 236 million in Indonesia, about 200 million in India, and 151 million in Bangladesh.
Unfortunately his main opponent, Le Pen, is a straight-up fascist. France seriously needs better options than him and Le Pen.