427
Medford, Oregon is ripping out a protected bike lane to make room for 40 parking spaces. Because who cares about the safety of bike riders when the convenience of drivers is at stake? (rv-times.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -20 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Apparently the mods feel that you’re allowed to advocate for violence, but I’m not allowed to point out that advocating for violence is wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    "apparently I'm not allowed to make massive assumptions and literally compare you not liking cars using space meant for people with limited mobility to genocide"

    Fixed that for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Courtney, genocide? Really? You are comparing the loss of a bike lane, which since this is Oregon will be back after the next local elections(1$ bet) to the persecution and extermination of an entire group of people, such as what's happening to the people in Palestine, Lebanon. Etc.

    How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you abuse and minimize the loss of life of whole entire communities by comparing it to the mere inconvenience of having to use the sidewalk, or just using the lane as a cyclist.

    If you think you are helping or assisting the goal of increasing safe spaces and healthier commuting, you aren't.

    You are giving those same people who took away that bike lane a reason to ignore your position.

    Stop making bad arguments for good causes or you only help those you are fighting against, sabotaging all the good work pro bike lane groups have accomplished

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I am absolutely not comparing the loss of a bike lane with genocide, I suggest you go back and read things again.

    Byeeee :>

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Then why did call it genocide in your reply?

    "apparently I'm not allowed to make massive assumptions and literally compare you not liking cars using space meant for people with limited mobility to genocide"

    Fixed that for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    They are pantomiming the other user's comment which got deleted for doing so. Gotta read carefully.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I didn’t compare anything to genocide. The other user is the only person who has used that word. They are also the only person between the two of us who has advocated for violence. All I did was point out that destruction of innocent people‘s property is wrong no matter who the perpetrator is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child)

    I'd not recommend you repeat whatever you wrote, but it looks pretty clear cut like you were twisting the concept of genocide to unfairly malign advocacy for the underserved and that's why your comment got removed. Mod can probably clarify, but the mere word "genocide" isn't bad or banned.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    It’s not that hard to look up the mod log if you are curious. But if you honestly think that busting headlights is “advocacy for the underserved” then I am afraid that you are part of the problem that I was trying to point out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's. Not deleted, the first comment to use the word genocide was the Courtney person that I accused. They are the one that initially used the term genocide. Here the text of the comment before the word genocide showed up.

    Apparently the mods feel that you’re allowed to advocate for violence, but I’m not allowed to point out that advocating for violence is wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Identifying abuse of the concept of genocide isn't against the rules, abusing the concept of genocide (Regardless of if you use the exact word or not) is what's against the rules. The removed comment seemed to be bending the meaning of the word genocide to incorrectly accuse the commenter of such, or doing something related. It's OK to use the word genocide to identify and call out abuse of the concept. It's not OK to abuse the concept.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    That’s not what I did. You can’t fix what isn’t broken.

    You didn’t even “not like cars”. You are advocating for the destruction of innocent people’s property.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Where the hell do you think you are? Some reasonable place that doesn't downvote and get angry at anything that doesn't resemble "Cars. Bad. No matter what"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •