this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2026
110 points (86.7% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

8943 readers
35 users here now

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 weeks ago (68 children)

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?

[–] pet1t@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago (62 children)

That's mainly a problem for car-brained people. There are other modes of transportation, you know.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 8 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

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.

[–] pet1t@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Oh definitely, but making those changes requires funding them. And that's virtually impossible to get voters to approve in some places currently.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] pet1t@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

sometimes I'm really glad that I'm European

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars.

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.

[–] pet1t@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (59 replies)
load more comments (64 replies)