With the somber serious tone of the video and the man selling it like he's selling life insurance. You can tell Volvo wanted to make this different than a normal car commercial as there is no way to sell it normally without it looking like it came from a GTA game. But yeah say what you want about no one needing an armored car but here we are, because we live in a low trust society where violent thugs roam the streets looking for confrontation.
It's especially egregious since /r/fuckcars champions property damage for anyone they don't like or a perceived slight. If we truly lived in a world with less crime (and not the bullshit "less crime" propaganda now) they might have an argument. It's reasons why gun control arguments in the 1990s focused heavily on a pro-police angle to do the heavy lifting when it came to the "bad guys" (highly flawed in practice but at least was ideologically consistent), but even in the early 1990s Los Angeles had that riot over Rodney King (and even then, it was the acquittal of the officers, not the actual offense).
In any case, arguing that a bullet-proof car isn't a useful thing to have in post-2020 American cities is absurd.
I hate these types of entitled cyclists who want to be treated like a road vehicle with all the infrastructure and benefits but none of the responsibilities. It's that attitude why they always lose town meetings as nobody wants to support a prick even if he makes some good points
They do badly at town hall meetings because they aren't equipped to actually debate. You can't dodge criticisms by telling people to watch a video or read a paper, you can't ban or downvote who disagree with you, sperging about dead children makes you look like a psychopath, and normies respond poorly to threats and insults.
most anti-car fags are leftists, they always use kids as a reason for why "today's cars are dangerous" (if a child gets hit / run over by an older car, that kid would still end up pretty fucked up)
yet lefties love to shit on conservatives whenever they justify that some laws are meant to protect kids (troons not being allowed to use the women's locker or toilet etc)
"Muh trans kids" is grooming/abuse shit, in this case they do not fucking care about kids, they're only using kids to get what they want. They do not care about kids and can (and do) run them down with a bicycle.
Jason made an almost hour-long video that's literally just:
I'm not watching his stuff but I had to try to look up both systems to see what the hell he was whining about. The 50 minutes is pretty meaningless, zoomers will sperg that long about how the camera and controls in
Super Mario 64 don't work like modern games, but what exactly got him mad? The Toronto streetcar obviously has a higher percentage of non-whites, but that's not something Jason would talk about. The thing that seems the most obvious is that the Toronto streetcar has
shared lanes with cars and other vehicles (notice the cyclist on the tram lane, and that the street is narrow enough to have just parking/loading/useless bullshit and two shared lanes).
Even if that is his thesis, there are going to be problems with that, such as...
- the streetcars of old that urbanists think we never should've gotten rid of shared the street with everyone else on the road
- "sharing the road with slower vehicles, grr grr" inadvertently advocates for banning cyclists from the streets altogether
- the streets of Amsterdam that have trams have a much wider right of way, wide streets and roads confuse and scare the urbanist
- streets that have trams means they have to go at a slower speed and have their own traffic signals (subways or dedicated ROW trains have traditional railroad crossing signals and rarely stop)
- sharing right of way with traditional lanes means has the advantage that the street can be used on off-hours and have more use ("efficiency")
- the "dedicated tram tracks in the median" IS how Houston's METRORail does it but he will NEVER give Houston credit for anything, even if it's something they want (or claim they want, like no zoning).
