>>1925437>The way we talk in an in-group is fun, exhilarating, moralizing.Fair
>The way the narrative is presented to the outside is presentable, scientific, popular and easy to grasp.Ok, so let's see that
>Ask any western, highly educated person under 40 and the prevailing opinion is less cars, more walking and cycling.And this is where you show you are spending too much time in echo chambers.
First, let's talk about your need to turn this into a generational warfare issue. A lot of senior citizens would like a way to safely and effectively get around on foot and by public transport. Older people have diminished reflexes and sensory acuity. Driving is neither safe nor fun for them. But older adults don't have much time left. The things that will help them are the things that can be rolled out quickly, like this year. For instance, increased penalties for hurting or killing someone with a car. Better intersection design. Speed humps. Speed cameras. Presumably these are things you might want too, and could find common ground? Yet you ignore these things and instead attack them as "boomer nimbys", why is this?
Same goes for middle aged highly educated parents (if you stepped outside your bubble you would know that it's common for high earners to wait until their 30s or even 40s to breed). No one wants their kid to be run down in the street. But people also want space and maybe a yard. There is something you both want, yet you fixate on the stuff you will never agree on, and instigate conflict, why is this?
There are people who love walking and cycling, but unlike you and me, they would never dream of doing it in a city because they perceive it as too dangerous. You could seek common ground with them, but you don't. Why?
I believe you have no genuine interest in things you say you want. I do not think you even live in a city or you'd understand these things intuitively. You just want a pretext for screeching at people who remind you of your parents. Yes?
