The premise of /r/frickcars is that dependency on car use is damaging to nature & society and we should be moving away from that; it's a slightly edgy position but most people will be able to agree with it to some degree. Recently, it has had a massive jump in activity and started to pull in more normies as it hits /r/all much like /r/antiwork did. This has, of course, generated a lot of arguments as the invading suburban boomers don't want to give up their lawn and extremists in the sub want everyone to live in pods and eat bugs from the communal trough.
I dont want to live in an apartment
You're either selfish or don't see the wider picture.
Apparently all the problems this poster has with high density living can be solved by construction companies not cutting corners ( 
) and having communal everything. Grow plants? Communal garden. Cook meat? Go to a restaurant. Want a house party? Just have an expensive communal party at the bar. 
At this point in /r/antiwork's life, the /r/all invaders won the consensus and the majority of activity on antiwork skewed away from literally just not working (as the sub founders intended) and more towards worker rights and shitty fake text message posts. After the normification, it was picked up by the media which eventually culminated in our favorite greasy dog-walker's interview.
r/frickcars is prime for the same thing to happen if the normies manage to soften the extremist positions in the sub's message as they did with antiwork. It hits a lot of mainstream progressive talking points (environmentalism, social problems, etc) and it will generate a lot of clicks but is not too controversial so is perfect for the mainstream media to latch on to. Although having 'frick' in the name might be a barrier to going mainstream.
/r/frickcars has a more reasonable position than 'nobody should need to work' and the member interviewed in the linked article managed to not sperg out, but they do look like a prime candidate for dog walking so we may yet have another Doreen situation.
](/images/1649211933669471.webp)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah I've been subbed to /r/frickcars for a while, the memes are good
But just like /r/antiwork it's spoiled by leftoids who can't do anything sensibly and instead have to smugpost about everything and demand the most extreme solution to everything
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Man i just want some decent bike lanes. Why do leftoids have to frick up any support for halfway decent public policy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It is pretty weird browsing through posts and finding some blaming the right for the car problem. Like i legit tought it was a parody sub at first because of this. Wtf does "right" have anything to do in this? Is it actually more likely for douche pickup drivers to be rightoids? Why do they b-word about elon musk instead of the government who still builds and maintains all these roads?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Especially when urban planning is very much a local issue. Something tells me the GOP isnt the mastermind behind the shit show of traffic in LA
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I think by "left" they mean how euro millenials imagine themselves to be and by "right" they mean how euro millenials imagine America, where all the major cities are full of traffic jams of nazis in F-350s.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
https://old.reddit.com/r/frickcars/comments/tptnqi/comment/i2doojj/?context=3
This exchange was awesome, some poor schmuck takes the time to kindly explain why top-down centralized urban planning tends to result in bad city design, and the response is
It's rare you see someone outright state that they're refusing to learn they simply disagree with the idea politically. Normally they say it's racist or something and that's why they wont learn
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
also the idea that "cities existed long before markets did" is still kinda blowing my mind. Cities exist largely BECAUSE of markets. Trading was much easier when everyone was in closer proxemity
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Cities literally can't exist without trade. Without trade they couldn't feed themselves simply because of population density. 1 acre of land only feeds so many people no matter how much hussle and bussle you have
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
In the Mayan empire cities existed for the sole purpose of trade. Everyone would go home to their rural abodes in the evening
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Because city planning won't actually change things. Our city council decided to get rid of half the lanes, put bike lanes everywhere, and intentionally clog traffic at much as possible. Still no one bikes because of snow, cold, rain, and the distance between everything. You still need a car for the half of the year that there's over a foot of snow on the ground.
What we ended up with was a traffic problem in a low population city with great freeway infrastructure and literally no one biking.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I love the way his hair is like a little dainty curtain for the back of his head!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Oh good, it's an absolute fricking r-slur. Just what this site needs.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context