For anyone who wants marriage and family in their future, I have some advice:
Don't marry wrong. If that means not marrying at all, so be it.
It is indeed better to not marry at all than to make the wrong choice on who to marry. I will never tell any man that they have an obligation to get married, because in spite of the fact that I am married myself, I understand that my path is not one that can or should be prescribed to all other men.
In short, demographics is far more important than these people would have you think. In fact, I am quite willing to bet that most of them are more leftist and therefore would adamantly deny that this could be a factor at all. Because that would go against their ideology of their urban planning vision being the panacea to many issues.
Due to that ignorance, I have a hard time taking them seriously even when they make good arguments about city planning. You have to account for all factors.
In fact, maybe as some of these examples become less and less homogenous, we may see crime issues surface. You know, the very issue we are promised becomes less with a walkable city. Yes, there is a theory about "eyes on the street" that claims walkable cities have less crime due to their walkability. I will not be shocked if this theory also does not account for demographics.
Maybe I am speculating in some ways. But I know that the US has far different demographics than many of the cities that are brought up as positive examples. So even if these advocates got everything they wanted in changing the city design, I would not expect the end results to turn out just like a city in Japan or the Netherlands.
Yes, I am skeptical that making a city more "walkable" will somehow reduce crime by itself. Again, they fail to account for demographics.
It is not so much that cities with racial diversity could never have better design for walkability, but let's not kid ourselves about the cause and effects at play. When you are soft on crime, people are going to respond in other ways. If there is no movement to fix the crime issue, people will seek other ways around the issue. Thus, we get more and more car centric city designs by voters and those who are otherwise unwilling to deal with the crime issue.
For example, this video:
The guy brings up 3 cities, Seattle, Atlanta, and Detroit. One of these things is not like the other. Guess which one? And guess which one was considered more "walkable?" Yes, Seattle. Do you think he was going to be willing to address the elephant in the room on racial demographics? Nope.
Gee, I wonder if there is going to be less desire to build for "walkability" if people are afraid to walk around the neighborhoods.
Been going down the rabbit hole on urban planning channels, out of curiosity given my suspicion that they are being pushed to the forefront as a Trojan horse to the Agenda 21 end goal.
Having cities be less car centric is not something I oppose, but those who are pushing for this model always use cities that just so happen to have a greater amount of racial homogeneity than the typical US cities. They just seem to think that they only factor to account for is the city layout, and nothing else.
Just thought of something. If those that think that the sanctions against Russia are harming the Russian economy in any way also think that Russia was responsible for the Nord stream pipeline attack, then they are just confirming how braindead they are.
This might not apply to that many people, but the legacy media outlets sure want you to buy this and must really have low expectations for their audience's intelligence.
And I have not even touched on how this madness is being done at the expense of our own wellbeing. Like the characters in the story, we are seeing a lot of effort and resources being put in place to push progressive values worldwide, including gay marriage. Are we really willing to put ourselves on the brink of collapse in the name of equality? Not necessarily, but those who are in charge appear to be. So we go further into collapse trying to push for values that won't be there once things break
So when you are forcing others to accept something at the point of a gun, you are not pro-freedom in the slightest. Even if in your mind having gay marriage be legalized is one aspect of freedom, we are not doing goodwill in the world by telling the world they need to tow the line with more "tolerance." As mentioned previously, it does not end simply at letting gay people marry. The slippery slope is no fallacy, but rather a reality. More will be demanded.
Now look at the world today, as those in charge push for their progressive ideology to be forced upon the world. Are we better off by forcing other countries to embrace homosexuality at gunpoint?
"But houseoftolstoy, allowing for gay marriage does not mean you have to embrace anything! It is just letting consenting adults being free to marry!"
I will not take that line of logic when we also see businesses being taken to court by homosexuals for not wanting to make a gay wedding cake.
Might be a fake story, but it is entertaining.
Even if it is a silly story, it actually is quite reflective of some people's political perspective. As in, they will consider gay marriage to be THE litmus test for what they call freedom.
"If gay people can marry, then you have freedom! Never mind all the other obtrusive laws that actually restrict freedom, homosexuality is the only thing that matters! So who cares if you can get arrest for hate speech, gay marriage!"
Looks like this will be my new home. Warning: I (probably) have Asperger's, so my be prepared for my autism to show through.
A club for red-pilled exiles.