Originally Posted by tandempower

My evidence that you are on their sides is in how you obfuscate reality by lumping together and manipulating categories to paint things in a certain way and convey doubt. Have you ever listened to a defense attorney defend someone you feel is guilty and you can hear them weaving a narrative to generate sufficient doubt to block a conviction? That's what it is like reading your posts. It is extra annoying for me because my posts get deleted when I take your bait, and then you go on posting and don't get deleted. Go figure.


The point is to question why people are behaving considerately regarding shopping carts but not share bikes/scooters. Obviously people could also get irritated and move the share bikes/scooters out of the way, but instead they are vandalizing them in dramatic ways. There is clearly an interest in perpetrating symbolic violence against them in order to get media attention and dissuade investment in these companies. They wouldn't do that with shopping carts because no one is trying to dissuade investment in those.

You see the same kind of aggression against Tesla as an alternative car company, to the point they are privatizing the company. It is similar to what the taxi industry was doing to smear Uber. Why can't you admit there is a pattern of anti-competitive behavior against new entries into the transportation markets at various levels? It is so glaringly obvious.

Some people are selfish and inconsiderate, but the majority wouldn't commit vandalism even against someone harassing them aggressively. People generally prefer to avoid committing crime, even if they don't think they'll get caught, and even if they think they are entitled to do so. Certain people are aggressive enough to decide they are entitled to vandalize or otherwise attack others and their property, but I can't believe it is a majority or even a sizeable minority. I stick with my hunch that there is a small guerilla army of vandals who are somehow encouraged and rewarded for vandalizing these share bikes/scooters in sensationalized ways for the sake of drawing media attention and discouraging investors from supporting those companies. Who exactly is behind it I can't say, but it just doesn't seem like the result of natural public behavior. If it was, I would expect more shopping carts to be abused in the same way, and they're not. There are much fewer of those harmed, and they certainly don't receive anywhere near the media attention that the share bike/scooter vandalism receives.

Originally Posted by tandempower

Complicated systems are simplified nowadays by software that translates them into simple behavioral cues via text messages, discounts, special offers, etc.

Originally Posted by tandempower

Imagine if everyone just rode and parked responsibly, now, and no one abused or vandalized the scooters, and everything went fine without further regulation.

Originally Posted by jon c.

The problem is that the laissez faire approach tends to work well only with lower population density. The larger the group you have doing anything, the greater the chances are that some in the group will behave inconsiderately.

Originally Posted by tandempower

Why do you find it necessary to toss insults around like "people sitting in their living room?" Who doesn't sit in their living room or some other room of their house daily? You also talk about 'people living there' having more insight into the truth of what's going on but how would you know if your neighbor was plotting a terrorist attack, a wave of vandalism, or whatever? The fact is that people can't know the motives of even their most trusted friends and family members because people simply don't always talk about their deepest thoughts and motives.

Originally Posted by tandempower

Basically all you're saying is that if people agree with others with the same biases, their biases count more. I know how you think and I don't understand why you can't see that a lie doesn't become more true if the liar has lots of friends agreeing with him.