this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
-16 points (36.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

15788 readers
1031 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
-16
I hit a nerve at nottheonion XD (lemmy.ml)
submitted 5 days ago by libre_warrior@lemmy.ml to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 24 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (5 children)

I’m gonna side with the people at nottheonion here.

I went to the post and read the article you were replying to. It’s about a 10 year old who is advocating for electric cars over ICE cars and you called that propaganda. Not only did you attack a 10 year old, exactly like the octogenarian congresswoman the post was about, you also did it in a very pedantic way.

I also disagree with the message. It’s beyond utopian to think zero cars is feasible in any way in the coming decades or so. Especially in the USA, where they don’t have the infrastructure. Yes electric cars are still bad, but yes they are also much much better than ICE cars. It’s much better for people to drive an EV than an ICEV while the transition away from cars is made. So, your comment is a great example of perfect is the enemy of good.

I like NotJustBikes and the whole idea of carless cities just as much as you do, but there will always be a necessity for cars, albeit on a much much more niche scale than it is now. Think of people who are disabled and can’t walk the 600 meters to the metro station or get on a bike.

The way you did this though is not helping the message get across in any way and will only make people feel more negatively about our cause.

[–] No_Maines_Land@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Think of people who are disabled and can’t walk the 600 meters to the metro station or get on a bike.

To be clear, those people should have mobility options available to them. But why do we put primacy on disabled people who can drive over disabled people who cannot drive?

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

I don’t mean they would have to be able to drive themselves – although autonomy is very important. But a car or some other form of stable four-wheeled transport that can move them from door to door is necessary for a disabled person’s mobility. Could be their SO driving or a taxi.

Also it was just an example, and just the first one that came to mind as someone who recently broke their hip by falling off their bicycle.

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But a car or some other form of stable four-wheeled transport that can move them from door to door is necessary for a disabled person’s mobility

Which disabled person? Disabled people are not a monolith, and many are unable to drive but perfectly capable of riding a bike, adaptive or otherwise.

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

If you read my first comment you will find the answer.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Disabled people and poor people are both disproportionately negatively affected by automobiles. The idea that they "have" to have access to a car because they are disabled isn't proof that disability requires cars, it's proof that even the people who can least afford it are burdened with having to have a car.

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

Well. What is your alternative?

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

you attack[ed] a 10 year old

just wanna leave that there like its a sane thing to say? criticizing ideas is not attacking people, even if they happen to be ten.

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Calling someone’s well-meant essay propaganda is not attacking to you? And you call me insane?

[–] DrCake@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Seeing that graphic that was posted the other day where like 80% of people in the US drive to work, just getting that to the European level is beyond utopian.

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

I’m also afraid the US is beyond help at this point.

But that also means we should advocating for EV’s in the US even more instead of alienating drivers with utopian “extremist” views that will never stick in the first place.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I don't know if its my instance but I don't even see an article link. So from my perspective its not even close to nottheonion faire which is supposed to be real news articles that you would think came from the onion or other satirical news sites. Honestly its far to easy to find nottheonion articles now which is so sad.

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I went to his comment and the link is in the post.

And I agree with the sentiment about nottheonion in general, but that is not what my comment (or his) is about.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago

yeah see I do not see a link to his comment or anything with the post here so I assumed it was a post he did that was the picture. So heck Im confused by what he posted here given it does not explain enough much less what he had in nottheonion. I think he is going to get a lot of poor feedback from poor correspondence and I fully realize im all over the place with my fediverse things so its a bit like im the pot in this situation.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

It’s about a 10 year old who is advocating

So you're going to accept whatever children say? That's all the more reason to question it.

It’s beyond utopian to think zero cars is feasible in any way in the coming decades or so.

It's actually the dystopian reality as oil and other resources become unaffordably rare. The extreme privilege of cars is only sustained through violence against humans and the planet.

there will always be a necessity for cars,

Wrong comm.

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

So you're going to accept whatever children say?

Did I accepting whatever children say? Sorry, but you’re going to have to do better than a straw man argument if you want a serious response.

It's actually the dystopian reality as oil and other resources become unaffordably rare.

Yes. That is kind of thepoint. Oil is not feasible anymore, and the infrastructure isn’t there for zero cars. EV’s are a good way to transition.

Wrong comm.

I don’t think so since my comment isn’t downvoted into oblivion.

[–] Elting@piefed.social 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I have this dream of being able to bike down any road without thinking about getting hit by a car. I could take the direct route to the grocery store. I could go at night.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 2 points 5 days ago

You don't need zero cars to achieve that, just protected cycle lanes on all roads and well designed streets that prioritize pedestrians and cycling and don't allow thoroughfare for cars. And also decent driver licensing tests and enforcement of road rules for cars... so that most people choose not to drive because it's too much hassle for them.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

It seems you misunderstood the idea of c/fuckcars. It's not about hating all car, it's about hating the idea of motonormativity(or carbrain) and anti car-dependent development. Your idea is a pie in the sky that will never be achieved.

[–] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Your idea is a pie in the sky that will never be achieved.

I'm sorry, I didn't see the sign about "dreaming not allowed".

Ofcourse it is possible to live without cars. Most of human history people has been fine without cars. It's just the past hundrer years it has been normalized by the machine through advertisements and capitalism.

Car infrastructures require over-production, so if we want cars, then we have to accept that we can't live with nature. Seems like you chose the game over screen.

The supposed reason we need cars is to drive to work, go to grocery stores, visit friends from far away. But there is nothing saying that life has to be this way, we don't need to reach the world. It should be sufficient to live slowly and in our local communities.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I'm sorry, I didn't see the sign about "dreaming not allowed".

I'm not saying you can't dream, i'm just saying that if your dream are so far fetched and then you act on it in a very toxic way, then your behaviour and dream deserve some criticism.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

You car apologism is what's far fetched and extremely toxic.

[–] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I don't think it's far fetched, but we can disagree on that. Can you tell me how I'm being toxic?

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

It's toxic to oppose cars in a suicidially car brained and car dependent society. What about this 10yo child and other children? Don't they deserve EVs?

\s

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You don't accept any deviation and only accept perfection, and then you post about being downvoted, that gives off the air of being toxic about it.

[–] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago

If we want to forward our dreams, we have to be assertive. Otherwise dreams will only be imposed upon us from might.

I dont expect perfection. We live under a machine where we are forced to use cars whether we like it or not. We cant expect the individual to move away from the car because the machine forces it upon us. Its a planned economy ruled in the name of profit, and they construct society to require cars. We should however expect people to dream.

I can agree that posting about being downvoted gives of negative vibes. But I dont think that is enough to call it toxicity. If I am approaching the conversation in a destructive manner, then I can agree with you.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

It’s not about hating all car

Speak for yourself, carbrain.

Your idea is a pie in the sky that will never be achieved.

Your conception of reality is pie in the sky. The planet is literally being destroyed as people burn through all the oil and similar resources. Cars are an unsustainable privilege enforced by violence against humans and the planet.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago

Speak for yourself, carbrain.

Check the side bar. You can call me what you want, I just follow what the comm is made for.