-
"Walkable cities is fatphobic" I think is a teachable moment in online discourse you should simply ignore. It has all the signs of a statement that only exists in an ecosystem like TwitterPermalink On twitter.com
♻️ 33 Retweets ❤️ 225 Favorites Mood +1 🙂
-
1. Needlessly confrontational The poster knows that many people who support the idea are also against fatphobia, but accuses them all of bigotry anyway, without even the possibility that people may have just not thought about this angle yetPermalink On twitter.com
-
2. Not even well thought-out Not all people who cannot walk are fat, and not all fat people cannot walk. If you wanted to seriously make this take it'd be a lot more accurate to say "walkable cities are ableist"Permalink On twitter.com
-
Fatphobia isn't about walking 2 minutes from an apartment to a bus station. It's about medical discrimination, social bullying, the conflation of being skinny with being "healthy", etcOn twitter.com
-
3. Overly focused on semantics Both walkable city supporters and walkable city detractors in this case want to design cities with humans in the center. More public transport, more third spaces, and less cars and parking lots. It's just arguing over what it should be calledPermalink On twitter.com
-
I think any time there's "leftist discourse" you should ask: 1. Does this seem designed to piss me off? 2. Are there obvious holes in this logic? 3. Are we mostly arguing about which words to use? If it's yes to all three: don't even retweet. Don't even clap back. No pointPermalink On twitter.com
-
If you'll notice, ALL of the worst discourse on this app checks all three. Like "Anne Frank had white privilege" or "Trains are systemic racism because whites want all the cars to themselves"Permalink On twitter.com