Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
The really weird thing is that back before the 1990s, when it was common for kids to be free range, there was far more stranger abductions and violent crime than there is today. We just hear about everything so quickly and so much that people think they are now living in a more dangerous time. But then that was the plan since 9/11 - have Americans live in constant fear so the government could take over.
so by that logic, less free range children, the more safe children will be? hence the police were correct to arrest this mother?
No, unless it's your argument that the kids were the source of the violent crime.
I think the argument would be that "alone children" aren't the source but simply create an opportunity for abduction, in that they remove a barrier of "parent catching you." Which, sure, that's for sure true (easier to kidnap alone child than with parents around, pretty non-debatable.)
BUT of course that ignores that there could be external reasons for the reduction in crime like anything from "more cameras" to "DNA exists now" to "literal FBI bug in your pocket 24/7" and anything else. Add to that it's more likely to be a confluence of different and often unrelated factors that all contribute to the reduction in both abduction and violent crime as a whole than "one reason." Pretty standard tbh, it's rarely one reason for shit like that.