i mean, i definitely see the advantage of having 'your own' thing- being the final arbiter of a thing you care about is awesome! you never have to bow to someone else's caprice or whatever
but it seems like being a cultural hermit is a horrible tradeoff for the benefit of personal ownership and domain
unless you're a deeply antisocial person i guess
Turns out you can experience city culture and also live somewhere else, as long as you also have a car.
Turning the city into the day trip is kind of like experiencing the people in it like they're animals in a zoo (for lack of a less inflammatory metaphor).
It's why the whole "roll up your windows, lock the doors" thing is so humorous: keep that place outside, where you can safely view it through your periscope from the safety of your submersible.
Explain to me how a giant company effectively carpooling their employees a net ill for society?
Like emissions alone make it positive
Also, like, if the bus catches on fire, that's at least 20 liberatarians gone LIKE THAT.
It's further Brazilification of society. Eventually, you get to the point where the "two Americas" becomes physical and tangible.
goddamn hedgie it's a major corporation providing mass transit to its employees. it has the effect of decreasing emissions/ pollution and curbing traffic, in addition to being net economically efficient.
and this is brazilifying how? that people who work at google get some well-thought-out and net-beneficial perks?
you are so dissatisfied with and nitpicking of everything that it's really difficult to take any of your objections seriously.
You're missing the forest for the trees, Will. Google is setting things up so that their employees can live more or less completely in a Google bubble, free of intrusions from that pesky "real world". Facebook is going one step further with corporate dormitories.
if this were actually true they'd do like MS does with their subsidized campus housing and discourage remote living.
and in any case, who cares if they were trying to do this? i don't really understand your endgame here. google employees make a lot more money than other people and get good employment perks. money translates to nice things and perks are nice things.
your basic problem is that rich people get nice things. trying to engineer situations where they are forced into sitting next to a homeless guy on a train does nothing except excite a sense of glee of really sticking to some abstract person you resent.
(and they won't sit next to the homeless guy on the train. they'll just drive their SUV an hour and back to mountain view, exacerbating traffic and pollution and costing the city and state more money).
This piece spells out my problem - we're creating a society where the top 1% lives very well, the next 4-5% is comfortable, the next 10% is clinging on, and everyone else is fucked. I don't have a problem with rich people having nice things - I have a problem with the rich creating an American Versailles.
right, but that's not a problem caused by or indicated by corporate shuttles. that's a problem principally with taxes that are too low, redistributive effects that are too meagre, and social policies that are too stupid.
like, sure, i get that you resent the rich, but taking every opportunity to put a thumb in their eyes doesn't address the problem at all.
in fact, it's probably better to encourage things like these google buses, since it's a (rare) instance of a big corporate entity spending their own resources to ease their impact on public resources.
I don't resent the rich, Will. What I do resent are the people focused on using their wealth to calcify the social structure on top, and who use their position to extract wealth from the rest of society with no benefit to anyone other than themselves.
you say this, but it's always not quite consistent with the kinds of things you hate on or cheer
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
i mean, i definitely see the advantage of having 'your own' thing- being the final arbiter of a thing you care about is awesome! you never have to bow to someone else's caprice or whatever
but it seems like being a cultural hermit is a horrible tradeoff for the benefit of personal ownership and domain
unless you're a deeply antisocial person i guess
Turns out you can experience city culture and also live somewhere else, as long as you also have a car.
i'm not talking about driving in to see the theater or 'spend a night with the wife in the bohemian neighborhood'- i'm talking about immersion. there's a lot more to city living than just being able to go to big-name concerts.
noise, shitty parking, high rent or high crime or both, lack of privacy, somebody pissing on my steps, no lawn to stand in while I shake my cane at people, forced to buy standard cane because sword-cane is illegal....
the noisiest places I've ever lived have been suburban houses
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
i mean, i definitely see the advantage of having 'your own' thing- being the final arbiter of a thing you care about is awesome! you never have to bow to someone else's caprice or whatever
but it seems like being a cultural hermit is a horrible tradeoff for the benefit of personal ownership and domain
unless you're a deeply antisocial person i guess
Turns out you can experience city culture and also live somewhere else, as long as you also have a car.
i'm not talking about driving in to see the theater or 'spend a night with the wife in the bohemian neighborhood'- i'm talking about immersion. there's a lot more to city living than just being able to go to big-name concerts.
noise, shitty parking, high rent or high crime or both, lack of privacy, somebody pissing on my steps, no lawn to stand in while I shake my cane at people, forced to buy standard cane because sword-cane is illegal....
the noisiest places I've ever lived have been suburban houses
i expect that the quality of urban soundproofing is highly related to the age of the development
Explain to me how a giant company effectively carpooling their employees a net ill for society?
Like emissions alone make it positive
Also, like, if the bus catches on fire, that's at least 20 liberatarians gone LIKE THAT.
It's further Brazilification of society. Eventually, you get to the point where the "two Americas" becomes physical and tangible.
goddamn hedgie it's a major corporation providing mass transit to its employees. it has the effect of decreasing emissions/ pollution and curbing traffic, in addition to being net economically efficient.
and this is brazilifying how? that people who work at google get some well-thought-out and net-beneficial perks?
you are so dissatisfied with and nitpicking of everything that it's really difficult to take any of your objections seriously.
You're missing the forest for the trees, Will. Google is setting things up so that their employees can live more or less completely in a Google bubble, free of intrusions from that pesky "real world". Facebook is going one step further with corporate dormitories.
if this were actually true they'd do like MS does with their subsidized campus housing and discourage remote living.
and in any case, who cares if they were trying to do this? i don't really understand your endgame here. google employees make a lot more money than other people and get good employment perks. money translates to nice things and perks are nice things.
your basic problem is that rich people get nice things. trying to engineer situations where they are forced into sitting next to a homeless guy on a train does nothing except excite a sense of glee of really sticking to some abstract person you resent.
(and they won't sit next to the homeless guy on the train. they'll just drive their SUV an hour and back to mountain view, exacerbating traffic and pollution and costing the city and state more money).
This piece spells out my problem - we're creating a society where the top 1% lives very well, the next 4-5% is comfortable, the next 10% is clinging on, and everyone else is fucked. I don't have a problem with rich people having nice things - I have a problem with the rich creating an American Versailles.
right, but that's not a problem caused by or indicated by corporate shuttles. that's a problem principally with taxes that are too low, redistributive effects that are too meagre, and social policies that are too stupid.
like, sure, i get that you resent the rich, but taking every opportunity to put a thumb in their eyes doesn't address the problem at all.
in fact, it's probably better to encourage things like these google buses, since it's a (rare) instance of a big corporate entity spending their own resources to ease their impact on public resources.
I don't resent the rich, Will. What I do resent are the people focused on using their wealth to calcify the social structure on top, and who use their position to extract wealth from the rest of society with no benefit to anyone other than themselves.
I could see your point if google was providing a shuttle for their executive level employees, but in theory they're providing the service for every single google employee.
In a way they're even saying, hey, can't afford to live right next to us and afford the gas to drive? We'll pick you up!
Explain to me how a giant company effectively carpooling their employees a net ill for society?
Like emissions alone make it positive
Also, like, if the bus catches on fire, that's at least 20 liberatarians gone LIKE THAT.
It's further Brazilification of society. Eventually, you get to the point where the "two Americas" becomes physical and tangible.
goddamn hedgie it's a major corporation providing mass transit to its employees. it has the effect of decreasing emissions/ pollution and curbing traffic, in addition to being net economically efficient.
and this is brazilifying how? that people who work at google get some well-thought-out and net-beneficial perks?
you are so dissatisfied with and nitpicking of everything that it's really difficult to take any of your objections seriously.
You're missing the forest for the trees, Will. Google is setting things up so that their employees can live more or less completely in a Google bubble, free of intrusions from that pesky "real world". Facebook is going one step further with corporate dormitories.
if this were actually true they'd do like MS does with their subsidized campus housing and discourage remote living.
and in any case, who cares if they were trying to do this? i don't really understand your endgame here. google employees make a lot more money than other people and get good employment perks. money translates to nice things and perks are nice things.
your basic problem is that rich people get nice things. trying to engineer situations where they are forced into sitting next to a homeless guy on a train does nothing except excite a sense of glee of really sticking to some abstract person you resent.
(and they won't sit next to the homeless guy on the train. they'll just drive their SUV an hour and back to mountain view, exacerbating traffic and pollution and costing the city and state more money).
This piece spells out my problem - we're creating a society where the top 1% lives very well, the next 4-5% is comfortable, the next 10% is clinging on, and everyone else is fucked. I don't have a problem with rich people having nice things - I have a problem with the rich creating an American Versailles.
right, but that's not a problem caused by or indicated by corporate shuttles. that's a problem principally with taxes that are too low, redistributive effects that are too meagre, and social policies that are too stupid.
like, sure, i get that you resent the rich, but taking every opportunity to put a thumb in their eyes doesn't address the problem at all.
in fact, it's probably better to encourage things like these google buses, since it's a (rare) instance of a big corporate entity spending their own resources to ease their impact on public resources.
I don't resent the rich, Will. What I do resent are the people focused on using their wealth to calcify the social structure on top, and who use their position to extract wealth from the rest of society with no benefit to anyone other than themselves.
I could see your point if google was providing a shuttle for their executive level employees, but in theory they're providing the service for every single google employee.
In a way they're even saying, hey, can't afford to live right next to us and afford the gas to drive? We'll pick you up!
It's a baller as fuck benefit.
Like OMG
WOW
doge.jpg
Generally this is why even the best planned cities will have flight, to the point where I believe that they will fail, because I think 99% of America is more like Texas than NYC
I need my car (in a city? what?) so I will do the easy thing and take all of my stuff and move to where other rich people live and not worry about it and not really subscribe to the difficult portions of living in a "free" society because short term happiness is much better than maintaining a society in which my kids will someday have to live
It all points to a value system that is much more individual-focused, even if that hurts the group at large
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
also we want to live in a house that doesn't have stairs (or at least a guest bedroom on the first floor) which is at least a million dollar house in the city
wow such luxury
your ailing parents do not have to walk up stairs wow
so decadent
fuck this shit i am moving to the suburbs and doing grass clippings angels on my freshly mowed bermuda grass
The economy will get better when more people have money to spend instead of all that money being funneled into the top 5%.
Fuck, this isn't rocket science. Millions of something being sold generates more profit than hundreds of that something being sold.
This is also affected negatively by the fact that the wealthiest people are usually tying up their money in assets or investments, thus making it a myth that any money will be "trickling down" any time soon.
i mean, i definitely see the advantage of having 'your own' thing- being the final arbiter of a thing you care about is awesome! you never have to bow to someone else's caprice or whatever
but it seems like being a cultural hermit is a horrible tradeoff for the benefit of personal ownership and domain
unless you're a deeply antisocial person i guess
Turns out you can experience city culture and also live somewhere else, as long as you also have a car.
Turning the city into the day trip is kind of like experiencing the people in it like they're animals in a zoo (for lack of a less inflammatory metaphor).
It's why the whole "roll up your windows, lock the doors" thing is so humorous: keep that place outside, where you can safely view it through your periscope from the safety of your submersible.
That is a pretty ridiculous assertion. I don't need go home to an apartment in the city in order to genuinely experience the people I meet while I'm there. This is a really weird concept, Winky.
Doing stuff in the city for a day isn't suddenly invalidated by the 15min drive to your house at night, as opposed to the 15min drive to your apartment in the city.
i mean, i definitely see the advantage of having 'your own' thing- being the final arbiter of a thing you care about is awesome! you never have to bow to someone else's caprice or whatever
but it seems like being a cultural hermit is a horrible tradeoff for the benefit of personal ownership and domain
unless you're a deeply antisocial person i guess
Turns out you can experience city culture and also live somewhere else, as long as you also have a car.
Turning the city into the day trip is kind of like experiencing the people in it like they're animals in a zoo (for lack of a less inflammatory metaphor).
It's why the whole "roll up your windows, lock the doors" thing is so humorous: keep that place outside, where you can safely view it through your periscope from the safety of your submersible.
Youre making exactly the same sweeping generalization you're condemning, though. Because I choose to live in a place that's closer to where I work, more convenient and affords me a lot more space at half the cost, I intrinsically "can't appreciate" the cultural intellectualism of the big city.
When someone rolls up their windows and locks the doors on their trip around the city, you're no better standing outside the car and calling them uncultured swine.
Just let everyone do what they think is best for them.
i mean, i definitely see the advantage of having 'your own' thing- being the final arbiter of a thing you care about is awesome! you never have to bow to someone else's caprice or whatever
but it seems like being a cultural hermit is a horrible tradeoff for the benefit of personal ownership and domain
unless you're a deeply antisocial person i guess
Turns out you can experience city culture and also live somewhere else, as long as you also have a car.
i'm not talking about driving in to see the theater or 'spend a night with the wife in the bohemian neighborhood'- i'm talking about immersion. there's a lot more to city living than just being able to go to big-name concerts.
noise, shitty parking, high rent or high crime or both, lack of privacy, somebody pissing on my steps, no lawn to stand in while I shake my cane at people, forced to buy standard cane because sword-cane is illegal....
the noisiest places I've ever lived have been suburban houses
i expect that the quality of urban soundproofing is highly related to the age of the development
Probably.
In my case, it's more behavioral.
One of the benefits of a suburban house is that you can have a backyard. Well, your neighbors have backyards too. Sometimes neighbors like to throw parties in their backyards.
Another benefit of a suburban house is that you can have a dog. Well, your neighbors have dogs too. Sometimes dogs bark at each other.
Americans have a perception that suburban houses are better for children, so they move before having a baby. Babies cry.
A six-foot wooden fence isn't enough to buffer all these noises.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I feel like this is a weird, no true scotsman thing where only people who live within the boundaries of an incorporated city are part of the life/culture of the city?
I will try to remember this. This isn't meant contentiously, just curiosity. Is there a perceived slight with using trans boy/girl because I know even on the cis side some people get hung up on the man/woman thing. "I'm a man not a boy!" and it's just like...I'm bad at terminology in my own PROFESSION. I refer to everything as "thingies and whatsits" so I tend to forget or forego proper terminology a lot. I find that understanding whether or not something is ACTUALLY offensive helps. Just wondering.
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
So our DNS is being flaky at the office. But my VM for testing is fine. So I installed Teamviewer in it so I could remote into my home machine, and use the VM I run firefox in to get to the forums. I'm sure I can a way to make this more convoluted.
city living is more fun. It forces you to associate with people not of your choosing. It gives you the option of buying almost exclusively from small businesses. It reduces your carbon footprint
I would expound on this more but phone poast from work
I will try to remember this. This isn't meant contentiously, just curiosity. Is there a perceived slight with using trans boy/girl because I know even on the cis side some people get hung up on the man/woman thing. "I'm a man not a boy!" and it's just like...I'm bad at terminology in my own PROFESSION. I refer to everything as "thingies and whatsits" so I tend to forget or forego proper terminology a lot. I find that understanding whether or not something is ACTUALLY offensive helps. Just wondering.
I mean, I kind of feel like transboy is a bit infantilizing, but some people just won't care. I think it primarily depends on the people involved and the context that it's used in.
I don't ever hear dogs or babies at my current apartment.
Once in a blue moon I hear a party upstairs, but it's never obnoxiously loud.
It's not like my apartment is totally noise-free. But when I think back to the different places I've lived, the noisiest ones have always been in the suburbs.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
i think a suburb of philly is not identical to a suburb of atlanta or seattle, but there is definitely a difference of lifestyle living in the city versus on its fringe? one could debate which is better, but someone who lives in a condo downtown is going to have a different relationship with the city than someone who drives to it 30 minutes each way withotu traffic
It just blows my mind that there are so many people out there who are content having nothing unique about themselves or the place they live, and prefer a homogenous existence devoid of novelty. I mean, don't get me wrong, actually being unique is nigh-impossible in a world of 7 billion people, but it bugs me that they don't even struggle with it. This is why, for all their faults, I fundamentally respect where hipsters are coming from.
Like, probably the most disgusting thing I've ever seen were the cruise ship ports in the Caribbean. You get off and every island greets you with a TGI Fridays. I mean, we're on Isla Roatan in Honduras; you walk maybe 10 minutes out of the port and you're walking among islanders living in squalor, and yet you get off the boat and you see a TGI Fridays, a collection of comforting suburban mainstays, and a couple novelty T-shirt shops. The people who got on that boat didn't actually travel anywhere, and they sure as hell didn't go to Honduras. They might as well have never left suburbia.
to be fair- while noting that i agree with the general premise of what you're saying- it strikes me as a little goofy to say "...having nothing unique about themselves". a lot of our lives are the experiences we face, sure, but eating at applebee's doesn't mean you can't have interesting conversation there or love your family in specific, personal ways. i think it's a little bit affected that we define a rich, interesting life as one where we pass by street performers and hear many languages we don't know.
i love the cultural potpourri of the big city, and i try to do new things especially when i am in new environments. but it's a pretty cynical view that people who don't do interesting things aren't having interesting or novel thoughts or lives.
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. When I say nothing I don't literally mean nothing; I acknowledge that it's totally possible to have a rich intellectual and emotional life in the suburbs.
I do think, however, that those kinds of settings discourage it. I think there's a significant degree to which exposure to a large amount of different cultures and ways of life and schools of thought have a very important, very beneficial impact on people's lives. A wider variety of experiences are, I think, crucial to developing empathy for people who differ from you. The isolationism that is a major component of suburban philosophy leads more easily to xenophobia.
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I don't ever hear dogs or babies at my current apartment.
Once in a blue moon I hear a party upstairs, but it's never obnoxiously loud.
It's not like my apartment is totally noise-free. But when I think back to the different places I've lived, the noisiest ones have always been in the suburbs.
God damn tennis courts generate noise in my apartment complex. This is only annoying on Saturdays I can sleep in, or on the odd occasion when some asshole is doing their Andre Aggasi impression.
i mean, i definitely see the advantage of having 'your own' thing- being the final arbiter of a thing you care about is awesome! you never have to bow to someone else's caprice or whatever
but it seems like being a cultural hermit is a horrible tradeoff for the benefit of personal ownership and domain
unless you're a deeply antisocial person i guess
Turns out you can experience city culture and also live somewhere else, as long as you also have a car.
i'm not talking about driving in to see the theater or 'spend a night with the wife in the bohemian neighborhood'- i'm talking about immersion. there's a lot more to city living than just being able to go to big-name concerts.
noise, shitty parking, high rent or high crime or both, lack of privacy, somebody pissing on my steps, no lawn to stand in while I shake my cane at people, forced to buy standard cane because sword-cane is illegal....
the noisiest places I've ever lived have been suburban houses
i expect that the quality of urban soundproofing is highly related to the age of the development
Probably.
In my case, it's more behavioral.
One of the benefits of a suburban house is that you can have a backyard. Well, your neighbors have backyards too. Sometimes neighbors like to throw parties in their backyards.
Another benefit of a suburban house is that you can have a dog. Well, your neighbors have dogs too. Sometimes dogs bark at each other.
Americans have a perception that suburban houses are better for children, so they move before having a baby. Babies cry.
A six-foot wooden fence isn't enough to buffer all these noises.
but your fellow white neighbour playing Remember the 80s pop is a decidedly different noise than some black yoof playing gangsta rap
the homogeneity of suburbia is what makes living next to each other easier. That's the status quo. The heterogeneous urban neighbourhoods have to rely on technological solutions.
Explain to me how a giant company effectively carpooling their employees a net ill for society?
Like emissions alone make it positive
Also, like, if the bus catches on fire, that's at least 20 liberatarians gone LIKE THAT.
It's further Brazilification of society. Eventually, you get to the point where the "two Americas" becomes physical and tangible.
goddamn hedgie it's a major corporation providing mass transit to its employees. it has the effect of decreasing emissions/ pollution and curbing traffic, in addition to being net economically efficient.
and this is brazilifying how? that people who work at google get some well-thought-out and net-beneficial perks?
you are so dissatisfied with and nitpicking of everything that it's really difficult to take any of your objections seriously.
You're missing the forest for the trees, Will. Google is setting things up so that their employees can live more or less completely in a Google bubble, free of intrusions from that pesky "real world". Facebook is going one step further with corporate dormitories.
if this were actually true they'd do like MS does with their subsidized campus housing and discourage remote living.
and in any case, who cares if they were trying to do this? i don't really understand your endgame here. google employees make a lot more money than other people and get good employment perks. money translates to nice things and perks are nice things.
your basic problem is that rich people get nice things. trying to engineer situations where they are forced into sitting next to a homeless guy on a train does nothing except excite a sense of glee of really sticking to some abstract person you resent.
(and they won't sit next to the homeless guy on the train. they'll just drive their SUV an hour and back to mountain view, exacerbating traffic and pollution and costing the city and state more money).
This piece spells out my problem - we're creating a society where the top 1% lives very well, the next 4-5% is comfortable, the next 10% is clinging on, and everyone else is fucked. I don't have a problem with rich people having nice things - I have a problem with the rich creating an American Versailles.
right, but that's not a problem caused by or indicated by corporate shuttles. that's a problem principally with taxes that are too low, redistributive effects that are too meagre, and social policies that are too stupid.
like, sure, i get that you resent the rich, but taking every opportunity to put a thumb in their eyes doesn't address the problem at all.
in fact, it's probably better to encourage things like these google buses, since it's a (rare) instance of a big corporate entity spending their own resources to ease their impact on public resources.
I don't resent the rich, Will. What I do resent are the people focused on using their wealth to calcify the social structure on top, and who use their position to extract wealth from the rest of society with no benefit to anyone other than themselves.
I could see your point if google was providing a shuttle for their executive level employees, but in theory they're providing the service for every single google employee.
In a way they're even saying, hey, can't afford to live right next to us and afford the gas to drive? We'll pick you up!
And Google employees are within that top 5% to a man.
Not that the perk is all upside for them either - with authentication and secure uplinks, the buses are pretty much mobile offices (and have unwritten expectations as such.) Which falls into "the company that makes it so you don't have to go home doesn't want you to go home" territory.
I feel like this is a weird, no true scotsman thing where only people who live within the boundaries of an incorporated city are part of the life/culture of the city?
I don't ever hear dogs or babies at my current apartment.
Once in a blue moon I hear a party upstairs, but it's never obnoxiously loud.
It's not like my apartment is totally noise-free. But when I think back to the different places I've lived, the noisiest ones have always been in the suburbs.
You don't hear people walking around above you? The occasional bang or thump of someone dragging something down the hallway? The TV set you don't own?
The combination of people doing shit to constantly remind me that I'm stacked in a building with a shit-ton of other people who all know my business, and the need to try and be as quiet as possible all the time so I don't contribute to that same annoyance with all the people around me, just wore me the fuck out. Especially once we had kids, holy crap.
I much prefer 8ft of air and two brick walls between my home and the next nearest one.
I don't ever hear dogs or babies at my current apartment.
Once in a blue moon I hear a party upstairs, but it's never obnoxiously loud.
It's not like my apartment is totally noise-free. But when I think back to the different places I've lived, the noisiest ones have always been in the suburbs.
Yeah, I feel that "noise" is a red herring when it comes to a reason to live in the suburbs.
I will try to remember this. This isn't meant contentiously, just curiosity. Is there a perceived slight with using trans boy/girl because I know even on the cis side some people get hung up on the man/woman thing. "I'm a man not a boy!" and it's just like...I'm bad at terminology in my own PROFESSION. I refer to everything as "thingies and whatsits" so I tend to forget or forego proper terminology a lot. I find that understanding whether or not something is ACTUALLY offensive helps. Just wondering.
I mean, I kind of feel like transboy is a bit infantilizing, but some people just won't care. I think it primarily depends on the people involved and the context that it's used in.
But transman/men is much safer to use.
Words for me..almost have a flavor. I don't like some words, or I feel that the sound the word makes is wrong..when I say transboy or transgirl it's just...like...the right word to me.
To me, transmen sounds like something you'd look up in a D&D manual. Probably as a subcategory of ent. But. I have learned, as CptRugged so eloquently put it last night on vent that "You are so odd." so I will try to use the correct terminology and not think about rolling a saving throw.
i think a suburb of philly is not identical to a suburb of atlanta or seattle, but there is definitely a difference of lifestyle living in the city versus on its fringe? one could debate which is better, but someone who lives in a condo downtown is going to have a different relationship with the city than someone who drives to it 30 minutes each way withotu traffic
that spool and gooey's complaints about urban life involved cars is pretty telling
the whole point of living in the city is that you don't need to take your car everywhere
there isn't (in spool's words) "a 15m drive back to your apartment." It's a walk or a bus ride or a train ride. You don't need to worry about traffic or parking. You can be as drunk as you want. You want food? You walk downstairs and get food.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
anyway it is interesting to me to consider what sort of stuff you're willing to spend money on when you pick somewhere to live. i mean, assuming you're a healthy young professional, unencumbered by dependents... hm. it's like you have a slider of safety-space-fun-centrality-living alone etc
I need to find someone rad to get some eggs from. The cage free stuff at the grocery... Well I'm not convinced it's really more humane...
Cage free / free range chicken is kind of a tough one, because given all the space in the world a chicken will still tend to stay inside and close to food.
Posts
Turning the city into the day trip is kind of like experiencing the people in it like they're animals in a zoo (for lack of a less inflammatory metaphor).
It's why the whole "roll up your windows, lock the doors" thing is so humorous: keep that place outside, where you can safely view it through your periscope from the safety of your submersible.
you say this, but it's always not quite consistent with the kinds of things you hate on or cheer
I use transbro.
the noisiest places I've ever lived have been suburban houses
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
i expect that the quality of urban soundproofing is highly related to the age of the development
I could see your point if google was providing a shuttle for their executive level employees, but in theory they're providing the service for every single google employee.
In a way they're even saying, hey, can't afford to live right next to us and afford the gas to drive? We'll pick you up!
Adopting this nomenclature.
It's a baller as fuck benefit.
Like OMG
WOW
doge.jpg
I need my car (in a city? what?) so I will do the easy thing and take all of my stuff and move to where other rich people live and not worry about it and not really subscribe to the difficult portions of living in a "free" society because short term happiness is much better than maintaining a society in which my kids will someday have to live
It all points to a value system that is much more individual-focused, even if that hurts the group at large
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
wow such luxury
your ailing parents do not have to walk up stairs wow
so decadent
fuck this shit i am moving to the suburbs and doing grass clippings angels on my freshly mowed bermuda grass
True story
That is a pretty ridiculous assertion. I don't need go home to an apartment in the city in order to genuinely experience the people I meet while I'm there. This is a really weird concept, Winky.
Doing stuff in the city for a day isn't suddenly invalidated by the 15min drive to your house at night, as opposed to the 15min drive to your apartment in the city.
Youre making exactly the same sweeping generalization you're condemning, though. Because I choose to live in a place that's closer to where I work, more convenient and affords me a lot more space at half the cost, I intrinsically "can't appreciate" the cultural intellectualism of the big city.
When someone rolls up their windows and locks the doors on their trip around the city, you're no better standing outside the car and calling them uncultured swine.
Just let everyone do what they think is best for them.
Probably.
In my case, it's more behavioral.
One of the benefits of a suburban house is that you can have a backyard. Well, your neighbors have backyards too. Sometimes neighbors like to throw parties in their backyards.
Another benefit of a suburban house is that you can have a dog. Well, your neighbors have dogs too. Sometimes dogs bark at each other.
Americans have a perception that suburban houses are better for children, so they move before having a baby. Babies cry.
A six-foot wooden fence isn't enough to buffer all these noises.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I will try to remember this. This isn't meant contentiously, just curiosity. Is there a perceived slight with using trans boy/girl because I know even on the cis side some people get hung up on the man/woman thing. "I'm a man not a boy!" and it's just like...I'm bad at terminology in my own PROFESSION. I refer to everything as "thingies and whatsits" so I tend to forget or forego proper terminology a lot. I find that understanding whether or not something is ACTUALLY offensive helps. Just wondering.
fuck em
city living is more fun. It forces you to associate with people not of your choosing. It gives you the option of buying almost exclusively from small businesses. It reduces your carbon footprint
I would expound on this more but phone poast from work
Google Arcology patrolled by predator drones
I mean, I kind of feel like transboy is a bit infantilizing, but some people just won't care. I think it primarily depends on the people involved and the context that it's used in.
But transman/men is much safer to use.
the "city" itself is tiny, but the low-rise sprawl extends forever outwards
living in the suburbs is living in Melbourne, nobody really lives in "the city"
Once in a blue moon I hear a party upstairs, but it's never obnoxiously loud.
It's not like my apartment is totally noise-free. But when I think back to the different places I've lived, the noisiest ones have always been in the suburbs.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
ABQ gets around this by expanding the city limits endlessly. "those people have money, and don't live in the city?! ANNEX!"
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. When I say nothing I don't literally mean nothing; I acknowledge that it's totally possible to have a rich intellectual and emotional life in the suburbs.
I do think, however, that those kinds of settings discourage it. I think there's a significant degree to which exposure to a large amount of different cultures and ways of life and schools of thought have a very important, very beneficial impact on people's lives. A wider variety of experiences are, I think, crucial to developing empathy for people who differ from you. The isolationism that is a major component of suburban philosophy leads more easily to xenophobia.
God damn tennis courts generate noise in my apartment complex. This is only annoying on Saturdays I can sleep in, or on the odd occasion when some asshole is doing their Andre Aggasi impression.
but your fellow white neighbour playing Remember the 80s pop is a decidedly different noise than some black yoof playing gangsta rap
the homogeneity of suburbia is what makes living next to each other easier. That's the status quo. The heterogeneous urban neighbourhoods have to rely on technological solutions.
And Google employees are within that top 5% to a man.
Not that the perk is all upside for them either - with authentication and secure uplinks, the buses are pretty much mobile offices (and have unwritten expectations as such.) Which falls into "the company that makes it so you don't have to go home doesn't want you to go home" territory.
skippy
there are people who live in the city
and then there are bridge and tunnel folk
which are you
lol
winky pls
You don't hear people walking around above you? The occasional bang or thump of someone dragging something down the hallway? The TV set you don't own?
The combination of people doing shit to constantly remind me that I'm stacked in a building with a shit-ton of other people who all know my business, and the need to try and be as quiet as possible all the time so I don't contribute to that same annoyance with all the people around me, just wore me the fuck out. Especially once we had kids, holy crap.
I much prefer 8ft of air and two brick walls between my home and the next nearest one.
Yeah, I feel that "noise" is a red herring when it comes to a reason to live in the suburbs.
Children are LOUD, yo.
Words for me..almost have a flavor. I don't like some words, or I feel that the sound the word makes is wrong..when I say transboy or transgirl it's just...like...the right word to me.
To me, transmen sounds like something you'd look up in a D&D manual. Probably as a subcategory of ent. But. I have learned, as CptRugged so eloquently put it last night on vent that "You are so odd." so I will try to use the correct terminology and not think about rolling a saving throw.
that spool and gooey's complaints about urban life involved cars is pretty telling
the whole point of living in the city is that you don't need to take your car everywhere
there isn't (in spool's words) "a 15m drive back to your apartment." It's a walk or a bus ride or a train ride. You don't need to worry about traffic or parking. You can be as drunk as you want. You want food? You walk downstairs and get food.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Sounds a lot like Los Angeles.
Cage free / free range chicken is kind of a tough one, because given all the space in the world a chicken will still tend to stay inside and close to food.