sthetic

Thanks for answering.

"I don't have any evidence, I just think so, and I'm old" is enough for me to understand your mentality.

I don't see it as a cage at all.

I know my comment was long, but you haven't answered:

• Why you think that the same people who advocate for services within 15 minutes also advocate for confining people within a certain zone as part of that goal - have they ever said so? Why would they want to do so anyway? What do they get out of it?
• Why you think that traffic calming is a slippery slope to confining vehicles, or all modes of transport, within a certain zone, instead of just trying to balance the ease of access between vehicles and bikes, scooters, skateboards, buses, pedestrians, etc.

If you want to believe in a conspiracy, why not look at the ways in which the auto industry has suppressed other modes of transport, from inventing the term "jaywalking" to suppressing electric trams to building giant highways through poor neighbourhoods?

Yeah, fictional romance is more interesting when it's forbidden in some way. Otherwise, who wants to read a romance novel about a nice couple who meets at the library when they're both single, and proceeds to have a wholesome relationship? Great for real life, but boring to read about or watch a movie about.

Many of the traditional reasons for forbidding a romance are gone in the contemporary world. Different race, different social class, same gender, rival families? Not convincing.

So you're left with stuff that's plausible but icky, like being in a relationship already, or being teacher/student or boss/employee. Or pornographic stuff like step-family. Those are problematic and people will criticize them.

You could set your story in a historical setting in which the countess and the gardener are truly forbidden from passion, or a fantasy world where the ogopogos and sasquatches are sexy rivals.

Or just have a lukewarm type of forbidden-ness, like "his family's greeting-card store is in competition with my family's greeting-card store" or "we're coworkers."

"oh, Trump wouldn't do that, it's illegal"

Phew, what a relief!

Also, when Trump does illegal stuff, people tend to allow it and obey him. If they try to shut him down using the legal system, he goes ahead and does it anyway.

I kind of just roll my eyes when someone says, "Aha, it's illegal! He can't do that!" We don't really live in that world anymore.

I looked this up and found this information about it:

In its Local Plan 2040, Oxford City Council proposed installing elements from the 15-minute city urban concept in neighborhoods throughout the city over the next 20 years. These plans included proposals to improve accessibility to local shops and other amenities for residents so they didn’t have to always drive. Separately, Oxfordshire County Council announced traffic-reducing measures throughout the city, with infrastructure to encourage car travel around the city by using the ring road rather than already congested roads. Initial opposition to the plans led to proposals to introduce permit schemes to facilitate car travel at certain times, allowing car access to areas that the council planned to restrict to motorists.

First, the article says it was separate. Nobody said, "We are blocking everybody's access to this road because the goal of 15-Minute City is to restrict people and forbid them from leaving their zone."

Second, it was just traffic-calming. They put up some planters blocking roads to vehicles to encourage access by bike, pedestrians, etc. That's not restricting access, that is INCREASING access. By bikes.

They decided that a different, busier road was more appropriate for cars. How on earth does that equate to restricting access? So your car had to drive further, using a big busy road instead of a local quiet street - boo-hoo! This, to you, was a sign that the government wants to confine you to a 15 minute area and never let you leave?

Are the following measures, to you, a sign of nefarious "restricting access"?

• An ambulance can drive the wrong way down the street, but you cannot
• A bus can travel in a bus lane, but you cannot
• A commercial vehicle can park in a loading zone, but you cannot
• A vehicle with several people can travel in a special HOV lane, but you cannot if you are driving alone
• A toll bridge reads your license plate to check if you paid a fee to access that route, and charges you a fine if you did not
• The city takes out a vehicle lane to build a dedicated bike lane and plant some nice shrubs
• The city closes a street temporarily for a neighbourhood block party
• The city installs speed bumps on a quiet street
• The city builds a traffic circle at a quiet intersection
• The city puts up a sign limiting the speed you can travel
• A highway cuts through an existing quiet suburb, meaning your car cannot cross it on a quiet street; you have to use an onramp and get on the busy highway

All of those technically "restrict access" by your seeming definition. Well, at least by vehicle. Is it your assertion that private vehicles reign supreme, and if the government does anything to slow down, discourage, or increase the cost of vehicle travel, it means their future goal is to create walled mini-cities that folks can't leave?

Edit: also, you say that people threatened to hang the city council to get them to renege - are you proud of this? Your "side" is threatening to murder people if they don't govern the way they want, and that's just "being vigilant"? To prevent planters from being placed on a street? What the hell?

It really is. You'd think they'd choose a positive news story.

Has anyone ever actually said, "I think we should have all services within a zone of 15-minute travel, and we should restrict people from leaving their zone, and this is called 15 Minute Cities and I support that idea"?

"Having services readily available" is the entire idea. "You're not allowed to go to another area" is nonsense that someone else tacked on to the concept to make people hate it.

The eyeballs are a good example. But perhaps an ignorant pro-vag-washing man could retort, "Well, nobody jizzes in my eyeballs!'

Maybe the issue is self-loathing as well as misogyny - they think their cum is disgusting, so they assume it contaminates a vag?

In this scenario, why is the reader "letting" their daughter do anything?

Presumably if she's old enough to have sex and get pregnant, she's old enough to give consent or withhold it. (If she's too young to give consent, then the sex should be forbidden and prevented based on age alone.)

How come the question is not, "You and a Palestinian are the last people on earth. Do you reproduce with each other?"

Nope, the question has to include a creepy paternalistic attitude towards a hypothetical innocent young girl under her parent's control.

I agree. Many people are imagining, "instead of using his vast wealth to fix the world, he dedicates all his money and mental energy to an elaborate bunker that will ensure his survival in a specific apocalyptic scenario he believes is likely to happen."

It might be more like, "amongst all the random wealthy-person shit he's bought, there are guns and motorcycles (because he thinks they are cool) as well as a pantry full of canned food (because everyone should have an emergency kit and you never know).

But I could be wrong.

Not even a grown-up book! Read a different magical fantasy book aimed at children or teenagers. And see how good those are, too. Many of them were written before Harry Potter.

I do think HP is good at the pacing and mystery aspect of it. The magical world isn't really that alluring, unless you are a 12 year old kid in 2001 who never read another book until now.

Reminds me of JD Vance.

Some people first glom onto left-leaning causes and opinions. They advocate for open-mindedness and human rights for all. They might even get really into the righteous purity of it all, where they get to criticize others for not being progressive enough.

But then maybe they don't get satisfaction out of that for long. Maybe they find that another leftist is criticizing them for their wrong-headed views. Maybe they aren't getting enough cookies for being a feminist.

So they switch over the right-leaning side of things. Maybe that allows them to be more openly hateful.

Or maybe they just changed their minds.

Honestly, I don't know much about Rowling's beliefs other than being a TERF. Maybe she supports all other "feminist" and anti-racist and left-leaning progressive causes. Perhaps she didn't go all-in on the likes of Trump, the way Vance did.

But you'd never know, since all she talks about is being anti-trans.