-
1/n I don't know the right words to talk about this yet, but I've been thinking about it a lot recently: Almost all of the discourse around gasoline & cars or housing is based on what feels like a moral judgment that living in dense urban environments is best, and anyone else
-
…in reply to @rockerest
2/n is living a sinful life. I use sinful here because the rhetoric on the topic is super charged with moral overtones. Living in the suburbs is "bad." I support the concept of walkable cities, and affordable housing, and renewable energy (and energy independence). But, those
-
…in reply to @rockerest
3/n things are not moral good. As a person who DESPISES living in tightly packed urban environments, the rhetoric around affordable housing and walkable cities means that I have to either advocate for a living situation for others that would actively harm my own mental health,
-
…in reply to @rockerest
4/n or I can't be involved in the discussion at all. I don't really know how to end this thread, and - to reiterate - I don't really have the fully-formed words for this yet, but I get a gross feeling whenever I witness discussions about housing/cars/energy, etc.
-
…in reply to @rockerest
5/n That gross feeling comes from a very strong perception that the only way the advocates of certain policies would feel successful is if I was packed into a dense, city apartment building with hundreds of other people. They may not feel the same way, but walkable
-
…in reply to @rockerest
6/n access to a bodega would not offset the substantial increase in my likelihood to want to end a life if I was forced to live in that situation. Where are the advocates for affordable housing, safe city travel, and energy independence for people who want individualized space?
-
…in reply to @rockerest
7/7 And absolutely miss me with a take that wanting space is morally or ethically wrong. I dunno. I guess I'm stream of consciousnessing because I haven't figured out how this works, yet.