If that doesn't hit close to home.....
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
606 points (96.2% liked)
memes
15002 readers
3228 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The commons is the one that hits hardest for me. In Washington State, you have to pay to use our state parks as well as the federal parks. They're saying that we're paying to park.
The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable Earth. These resources are held in common even when owned privately or publicly.
This was an alternative to defunding the state parks completely.
Republicans didn't want to pay for parks at all.
Requiring payment to enter the parks is a way to fund them without "taxes".
Yes, all of that is what we are complaining about.
Have you tried cycling?
Yes everyone who ever wants to go to a truly set aside, lovely natural park is a Tour de France level bicyclist.
Fuck disabled people, why should they enjoy nature?
Two common strawmen in favor of car dependency.
There are cheap electric bikes out there (at least much cheaper than a car). No need to be an athlete.
Disabled people are among those who suffer the most under car dependency. There should exist public transportation to go to parks for everyone, including disabled people.
There should exist public transportation to go to parks for everyone, including disabled people.
Yes that would be wonderful.
Unfortunately that world doesn't yet exist.
Let me know when the light rail, or even a bus goes from Seattle to the Hoh Rainforest.
At the rate the light rail is expanding, maybe 2250.
Maybe a bus by 2075?
There are cheap electric bikes out there (at least much cheaper than a car). No need to be an athlete.
Actually motorcycles are still more performant (greater ranges, better suspension, greater speeds) and cheaper than the kinds of eBikes you are talking about, capable of making a 100+ mile journey.
One of those kinds of eBikes is about 1/4 of my yearly income from SSDI.
Before rent, before food.
Not that it would matter anyway:
How is my crippled ass, who literally cannot even balance on a stationary bike, due to the nature of my injuries, nor grip the handle bars, who would topple over within 30 seconds...
... who can barely walk 10 minutes at 1mph in braces and with a cane before I have to lie down, not sit down, lie down...
How am I gonna ride this eBike 160 ish miles to the Hoh Rainforest? Up a literal mountain range?
...
I am not in favor of car or ICE dependency.
Far from it.
But you are acting like all your proposed ideas just... already exist. That they could basically magically be implemented at the snap of a finger.
This is nonsense.
You have to actually transition to the new paradigm in a way that doesn't just immediately fuck over people who are the edge cases that are not compatible with your vision.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Ebikes/trikes can help for the elderly or some disabilities. Plenty of disabled people can cycle but not drive too.
And plenty of them can't, and can barely tolerate being in even a mobility scooter.
So would you support removing cars with disability transport being one of the few exceptions? Because that would make it easier for most disabled people without making it harder for any.
Yes! Of course!
In my ideal world, there would be general, semi-individualized, semi on demand, or at least 'request a ride in advance', electric or hydrogen or hybrid (or perhaps even locally sourced bio diesel powered, if electric or hydrogen is too cost prohibitive) mini busses or vans that would help people with mobility difficulties get to and from daily tasks within a city or multi city region.
This would be like ambulances, like fire trucks, like ... other busses.
Some important services just cannot be practically un-car-ified, and still function at all effectively.
This is why most busses in Seattle, and much of the US broadly, have deployable disability ramps and internal wheelchair attachment point zones, so that wheelchair bound folks can get around.
It would probably be more generally time effiecient to have just a seperate fleet dedicated to them/us in particular, given that a single wheel chair pickup/deboard for a city bus can throw off its entire planned timetable by a good amount, in high density, high traffic, peak ridership hours.
... but thats getting a bit into the precise technicalities.
...
For long distance disabled travel? Yeah, this is a legitimately more difficult logistics problem to solve in a general way that isn't wildly costly to either the rider, or the ride provider... but bicycles are probably the least sensible solution to this problem I've ever heard.
load more comments
(12 replies)
load more comments
(18 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Sorry but saying a 13th century high medieval peasant owned their hovel is just incorrect. Yeomen did, they owned their own land, but they didn't live in hovels. Serfs and villeins were bound to their land, owned by a lord, and had to do uncompensated labor on the lord's land for the "right" to live on the land they could not leave.
Also, saying high medieval serfs paid "1/10 annual produce" completely ignores all the other feudal duties owed to their lord. Usually, serfs owed a third of their land value in produce to their lord off the peasant's land, as well as not owning anything, while having to use the lord's flour mill which was also heavily taxed. @PugJesus@lemmy.world has it right.
Doesn't know how to use a Venn Diagram (twice, not in the intersection)
Elaborate if you're educated about it
Bit we have social media.now
So things are MUCH better.... right?
And no plagues!
oh wait
Keep going.
Progress will never fail landlords
Well, if we go for economic contraction, shrinking population, automation and even wealth distribution, then the landlord will need to find other work.
Not even close.
Elaborate?
Many would own neither their land nor their hovel. The lucky ones would own themselves, at least; the unlucky ones would not only not own themselves nor their hovel, but also not own their own fucking children - nearly half of England's population was unfree. Of the free half, a majority of them would not have owned any land in any real sense. They lived on their lord's sufferance.
Their access to the commons was dependent on the goodwill of their local lord, and, indeed, as the 14th century comes into play, that access is stripped as soon as it becomes more profitable for the local lord to sell the rights off.
10% of their harvest would go to the Church alone - not optional. Much more would go to their local lord simply for the privilege of existing - around 25% if you were free, closer to 50% if you were unfree. And that's not getting into various other taxes, such as for anything sold, or to get permission to marry. And if you were unfree, you'd owe nearly half of your working days to your lord's needs - without any recompense, in money or produce. On top of that, many taxes levied were irregular - ie whenever your lord thought he could get away with it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Only half?
https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/26/map-shows-much-salary-spend-rent-different-areas-london-10072789/
London is more like 60-80%.
view more: next ›