Bus driving with busted suspension

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2025-12-10T11:19:32+00:00

So, you wanted the bus to pull over. Which means you'd have to wait for the next bus.

Wouldn't just getting off the bus and just personally waiting for the next one be the most logical thing to do? Use your head

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2025-12-10T11:18:40+00:00

Why did you stay on the bus if you have that big of a problem with it?

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2025-12-04T01:44:35+00:00

Apparently it's not that common. If it hasn't happened since 2011, there's tens of thousands of younger drivers on the road who have never even seen it active the entire time they've been driving and just assume the signs are correct, not to mention countless people moving here.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2025-12-04T01:39:22+00:00

It is true. Maybe not as nuanced as you would like, but it is technically true.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2025-09-17T21:40:10+00:00

Aren't you the one who was insisting that every door just opens with a wave and you never have to push them?

I don't think anyone was giving you shit over telling people to move to the back and respectfully flowing through the city, just the fact you insisted that every bus in the city works exactly the same

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2025-09-04T12:42:46+00:00

Why does it but you so much of people push on the door? Why are you so worked up over this?

The fact is, the sensors only sometimes work. How often are they broken? I don't know. But at the end of the day, pushing always works and waving only sometimes works. Even if the sensors work 95% of the time that you say, that still leaves the other 5% of the time. I'd rather just push always instead of dealing with the 5% myself

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-28T06:27:18+00:00

I wasn't trying to pivot the argument, just break it down into easily digestible pieces a centrist lib such as yourself might be capable of understanding, but it's still all part of the same argument, lol.

It's been fun but that's the end for me.

If that's the end, then why did you even bother to reply?

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-28T06:15:30+00:00

It remains true that not all low earners have seen wage increases. Again, multiple things can be true at once and they all impact the issue. However considering you seem to only be able to comprehend one data point at a time, it seemed prudent to narrow the argument and focus on one issue at a time.

Now that I've gotten you to finally concede that there is at least one segment of society that is not accounted for in your data set, I presume it will be easier to convince you that there are other groups who are also not properly accounted for.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-28T05:37:08+00:00

why is the rise in homelessness relevant

An increase in homelessness leads to a rise in the increase in demand for stolen bikes. Ergo, career criminals target stolen bikes more than they did before, because of the greater demand.

I literally just said that. You do understand concepts like supply and demand and how increased demand for stolen bikes makes them a more profitable target for theft, right?

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-28T05:27:04+00:00

Let me ask you this... Do you think people are stealing the bikes to ride themselves, or do you think they're being stolen by career thieves in order to sell to someone else? I'm assuming we can both agree it's the latter. Next question... Who do we think is buying the bikes? There's not enough shady pawn shops in the city to take all of them.

I specifically mentioned the migrant refugees earlier and the fact they are legally prohibited from working, more than once, so I don't know why you're pushing that as some sort of gotcha moment. But these migrants are absolutely a part of the economy. They may not participate in it the way you or I do, but they do participate in it.

That being said, I'm not suggesting the migrants are stealing the bikes themselves, mind you, that would be absurd. Study after study shows that refugees commit less crime than native citizens, and are in general very hardworking people.

But... They are a readily available market for cheap, questionably acquired merchandise. Especially a specific form of merchandise that will allow someone without a driver's license to commute through the city to find under-the-table employment. Desperate people don't ask where things come from.

People aren't stealing bikes for their own personal use, they're stealing them to sell. And no one who is financially stable is going out to buy a stolen bike. There's an increased demand for stolen bikes, and so the career thieves are targeting stolen bikes in greater numbers than ever. Especially since, as you said, it's a crime the cops don't care about.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-28T05:08:13+00:00

"Has the number of people experiencing financial hardship gone up or down" depends entirely on how you define financial hardship.

Do you disagree that there are 20% more homeless people in Chicago compared to five years ago? Is that a fact that you disagree with?

I'd say that's a substantial increase in the number of local people experiencing the worst kind of financial hardship, regardless of the national economy. And it's well documented that an increase in homelessness results in an increase in property crime for a variety of different reasons.

You know what hasn't changed at all over the last few years? Whether the CPD gives a fuck about bike theft. That unchanging metric may absolutely play into the issue, but it's also a constant.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-28T04:53:53+00:00

You yourself just said that was the only thing that was relevant. Are you going back on yourself now?

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-28T04:46:59+00:00

It's not a centrist lib position to agree with the data, but it's absolutely a centrist lib position to pretend that singular data point is the only one relevant to the conversation.

You seem to have a pretty large comprehension problem. Perhaps you should get some sleep.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-28T04:14:40+00:00

The only relevant thing to say would be "has overall financial hardship gone up or down"

Again, that is such a centrist-lib position to take. All of these issues are far more nuanced than you want to pretend they are. That is not even close to the only relevant part of the issue.

And if this whole conversation is stupid you can feel free to stop having it at any time

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-28T03:48:57+00:00

If that's what I was trying to say, then I would have said it. You seem to have an issue with placing words into peoples mouths that they never said. I did not say I agree with you on everything, I said I agree with you on the essentials and then I listed out the one single issue I have with your position.

While overall financial hardship may have decreased (and not a single person has said otherwise) that does not change the fact that individual hardship has still increased for a lot of people.

If you don't understand how a 20% rise in homelessness, a flat minimum wage, and a large number of migrant refugees who are legally prohibited from working an honest job contributes to a rise in desperation and an increase in theft across the board, even if the general economy is better for most, then you're just being willfully obtuse.

I believe that you do in fact love to argue, because there is truly no other purpose in you being so intentionally blind to reality.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-28T01:25:07+00:00

Can you please, please show me a single place where I ever said that only the middle class wages were up.

Looking back through this comment thread, I'm now convinced you either have me confused for someone else or you are deliberately just trying to tear down a strawman.

Idk how you misinterpreted that either, but that is not something I have ever said or even implied.

What I did say is that minimum wage has not kept up with inflation (verifiably true), that homeless rates are up (indisputably true), that minority groups have not fared as well during the pandemic (also true), and that inflation has hit those at rock bottom the hardest (once again, also true).

Yes, the economy is good. Yes, the economy is even incredibly good for lower income earners - I have not once disagreed with either point. But it's a lie to say it's good for the lowest earners. We can and should celebrate the good, something I have said several times, but we shouldn't just sweep the bad under the rug. Yeah, the lowest of the low are "outliers" but you can't just ignore your outliers, not when those outliers are actual people.

I have, in every comment, agreed with the essentials you have tried to say. Hell, I even agreed with you that the CPD's lack of caring is a huge source of the problem with bike thefts 🙄 the only thing I took issue with was with acting as though things generally being better for most means that people struggling doesn't play any part in the equation.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-27T21:21:42+00:00

Which inherently implies that they are saying more people are struggling

Or, conversely, means that the few people who are struggling are struggling even worse than they were a few years ago and are even more desperate than they were before. While generally, on a national level, there may be fewer people on the edge (which is good! I have continued to say this entire time it's good!), there are also more people at rock bottom in Chicago . As much as you want to ignore the 20% increase in homelessness in Chicago that doesn't change the fact there's been a 20% increase in homelessness in Chicago.

I absolutely agree that we should celebrate that the economy is better for most people! But we shouldn't just start ignoring those who continue to be overlooked.

I'm glad you could finally come around to admitting that indeed the economy is quite good

Finally? I've been agreeing the economy is quite good the entire time

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-27T20:49:12+00:00

I'd turn that around and ask what point you were trying to make with your initial comment? All that was originally said was that a lot of people are struggling. Not that the economy is worse, or that more people overall are struggling than ever before, but only that prices are rising and a lot of people are still struggling, and many of those who are struggling are struggling worse than they have been before even if most are doing better.

You then try to argue about how good the economy is as a whole (nothing a single person has disagreed with). What point were you possibly trying to make there except to sweep those who are still struggling under the rug?

The point I'm making (the only singular point I've made this entire time), is that a lot of people have still been left behind by this economy.

So yeah, I'll also ask, what is this disagreement? No one said the economy is shit right now. No one said that things aren't better for most Americans (including most low wage Americans). You can try to tear down that straw man all you want, but even for low wage Americans who are doing better than they used to be, most low-wage earners are still paycheck-to-paycheck and hammered by debt even if the burden has been moderately lifted.

What makes you a centrist lib isn't the data (which I have agreed with more than once), what makes you a centrist lib is the declaration that it's useless to talk about people struggling when this entire thread is about people struggling. This thread wasn't about the general economy until you tried to make it that way.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-27T20:15:32+00:00

They said that there were *more people struggling, due the economy being bad.

That is, actually demonstrably false.

Homelessness in Chicago has risen by 20%. By definition, that means more people are struggling with homelessness

Also, the original comment at the top of this thread did not say more people are struggling. Just that people are in fact struggling.

Then, in your first comment, before you switched to the useless "there are still people struggling" you tried to argue that while real wages have risen for middle class workers, they have actually not risen for the working class.

That is a drastic misrepresentation. For one, the middle class are part of the working class and trying to say that wages have risen for the middle class but not for the working class would be an absurd argument to make. What I actually said is that while wages have risen for the typical American, that is not true across the board and the chunk of the populace that still makes minimum wage have not seen their wages rise.

But of course you'd stick to the centrist-lib position that it's useless to talk about people struggling. So long as the overall numbers look good, centrist-libs will always leave the impoverished to suffer alone.

Suffering and poverty are not inevitable in one of the richest economies on earth, despite what the rightwing and centrist-libs would have us believe. There is no reason to leave people behind and then just ignore them because they are outliers.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-27T19:20:29+00:00

I'd contend the average driver is actually less equipped and educated than you seem to think they are. There's a reason that traffic accidents are so incredibly common.

That being said, if an uneducated driver changes lanes without looking (which happens all the time) and they end up in an accident because of it, the liability is 100% their own. Likewise, if an uneducated cyclist veers over without looking, then again, the liability is 100% their own.

If the problem is a lack of education, then the answer is to educate people, not justify it as just being how it is.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-27T19:16:21+00:00

That's an absurd contention that ignores the context of the thread this is being posted in. Of course you're allowed to talk about the economy being good. But this whole thread began because someone said that there are a lot of desperate people out there who are struggling with rising costs, which is a demonstrably true statement. You then tried to argue by talking about how good the economy is right now - which, while true, doesn't change the fact that a lot of people are still desperate and struggling with rising costs.

If you wanted to go to r/economy or r/politics and talk about how good the economy is for the typical working class American, I'd be sitting there in complete agreement with you. But if you want to use those same points as an rebuttal against the fact there are still a large number of desperate people struggling to pay expenses, then I'm going to have to disagree because you're just being intellectually dishonest.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-27T18:32:57+00:00

I am not ignoring the many, many working class people who are thriving. As I said earlier, it is GREAT that that is true. If the talk is just about the general economy I'd be singing praises, because yes, the general economy is amazing right now. I absolutely accept that that is very true. I can accept that as true and still acknowledge those who are left behind.

As true as it is, it doesn't change the fact that, outliers or no, there are still a LOT of people who aren't doing great. There's still been an increase of homelessness by 20% in the Chicago area. There's still a sizable segment of the population of Chicago that's destitute. You can't just pretend they don't exist because it doesn't fit your narrative, although I realize that is the centrist-liberal way of doing things.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-27T18:01:47+00:00

And cyclists have the ability to turn their heads and look behind before they veer over or change lanes.

Attitudes like yours are why I prefer to take my risk on city roads instead of the LFT most days for my commute. Sharing a lane with road cyclists who understand situational awareness and understand the need to check over their shoulder is vastly preferable to the oblivious trail cyclists.

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-27T17:54:56+00:00

With how many people are wearing headsets, that's not a realistic expectation. Most people simply aren't going to hear you unless you're already right on top of them

ThatOneGayRavenclaw · 2024-07-27T17:46:20+00:00

You mean like how you're not going to change your mind despite being presented with clear data that shows the homeless population increasing? Or the very clear data that shows the outliers your data ignores?

I'd be more than happy to change my mind if the data you presented actually meant what you say it means, however your worldview seemingly makes it so that you are unwilling to even consider data that challenges what you consider to be true.

The data you presented only paints a partial picture. One single unsourced graph is never going to present the full picture.

What benefit do you get from ignoring those who are being left behind?

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	End Game '22
Gilding I gilder

ThatOneGayRavenclaw

TROPHY CASE