Your reading comprehension and understanding of English vocabulary is about on par with your lemmy account age.
Are you really trying to discredit someone else’s argument by using their “lemmy age”? Like… are you trying very hard to be this guy?
Now I’ll still assume that your argument is in good faith and respond accordingly. So let’s recap.
The post listed the inefficiencies of electric cars besides ICE cars. The underlying message was that electric cars only solve a very very small problem that ICE cars have, but still possess most of the issues of ICE cars. Hence, we need a much better alternative (trains, wink wink).
To this, you replied saying that this community unfairly criticized car owners. According to you, the infrastructure is the biggest one to blame rather than car owners. Which I would only partially agree (as most car owners still support car centric infrastructure). Of course, if there’s not train in your city, you can’t ride one! But you definitely can lobby for one. Your implicit biases against this community due to those one or two crazy posts skewed your perception in weird ways.
This post is most definitely directed at the tech bros (or the Tesla fanboys), according to whom the solution for GHG emissions from the transportation sector is electric cars. I hope that you agree that this is a dumb argument. This post merely makes fun of this argument. This community is not a monolith, you know… It is thus very important to take the context of every post within itself.
You could’ve argued against/for this idea. Instead, you put up something weird and irrelevant like “this community is dumb for blaming car owners”. You might be right, but it just diverts away from the topic of discussion. Why not create your own post explaining your position? It’s like going to a post saying “We need to increase the minimum wage” on a lefty community and commenting “but the lefties are commies”. This MIGHT be true, but it is not at all relevant to the discussion itself, is it?
Are you really trying to discredit someone else’s argument by using their “lemmy age”? Like… are you trying very hard to be this guy?
Now I’ll still assume that your argument is in good faith and respond accordingly. So let’s recap.
The post listed the inefficiencies of electric cars besides ICE cars. The underlying message was that electric cars only solve a very very small problem that ICE cars have, but still possess most of the issues of ICE cars. Hence, we need a much better alternative (trains, wink wink).
To this, you replied saying that this community unfairly criticized car owners. According to you, the infrastructure is the biggest one to blame rather than car owners. Which I would only partially agree (as most car owners still support car centric infrastructure). Of course, if there’s not train in your city, you can’t ride one! But you definitely can lobby for one. Your implicit biases against this community due to those one or two crazy posts skewed your perception in weird ways.
This post is most definitely directed at the tech bros (or the Tesla fanboys), according to whom the solution for GHG emissions from the transportation sector is electric cars. I hope that you agree that this is a dumb argument. This post merely makes fun of this argument. This community is not a monolith, you know… It is thus very important to take the context of every post within itself.
You could’ve argued against/for this idea. Instead, you put up something weird and irrelevant like “this community is dumb for blaming car owners”. You might be right, but it just diverts away from the topic of discussion. Why not create your own post explaining your position? It’s like going to a post saying “We need to increase the minimum wage” on a lefty community and commenting “but the lefties are commies”. This MIGHT be true, but it is not at all relevant to the discussion itself, is it?