Roger Rabbit vs. Cars

Who Framed Roger Rabbit, apparently in passing, said the quiet part out loud. It tells a real piece of history, except the part where IRL Judge Doom won and got his freeway. Doom bought all the LA tramlines, trashed them, bought Toontown, trashed it, and then replaced it all with [[Freeway]] so everyone had to use cars. The black government blatantly bulldozed anyone who accidentally built anything good. (It's okay, Americans love it when DC does that.)

"I think that to big degree americans using only cars make public spaces unsafe. Since they cutted themselves from these spaces it became teritory of criminal individuals and hobos. I took walk in Hollywood and saw many "things" (in the morning),cant imagine late night..."
https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/MikeJuliette39/status/1612756339796869121

"Those wet streets sure did cause rain"
https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/CovfefeAnon/status/161275767520429670

So we have Roger, who told the truth except they claimed the losers won and the winners lost.

We have Mike, who correctly notes the original causal chain, except with Doom deleted from history. He confuses an effect for a first mover. Poltergeists. The plate threw itself. Just a free people being free! (Also that "spelling" wtf.)

We have Cov, who blames Doom's policies on the effects of the effects of Doom's policies. With Doom deleted from history, how else could it have happened? (Though yes, the effect of the effect reinforces the effect. Positive feedback loop. The best kind of tyranny.)

Stonetoss gets in on the action, propagating the myth that the only way to avoid loving ninjas is to pay GM their danegeld.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: the people of America.
America's problem is that it's full of Americans.

But wait, there's more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvdQ381K5xg

This guy doesn't understand why Americans, who aren't allowed to punish criminals, might not want to meet anyone poorer than they are. He even uses a nice picture of [vibrancy].

Gee, why might a town need strict loitering laws? Nobody expects a vagrant to be an asshole. Truly comes out of nowhere. No, we all want to meet folk from "all walks of life" don't we?
Seem to have lost a -1 in that equation somewhere. Nobody wants to talk to anyone of lower social status if they don't have to. Especially if they're not getting gratitude or obedience from them. Goes triple when the only way you're allowed to escape crime and awful asshole neighbours is living somewhere too expensive for them to reach.

(As if you needed any further proof that Cheers is a shitty, shitty show that hates you and wants you to suffer. Wall-to-wall abusive relationships.)

IRL Judge Doom was General Motors, by the way. Note that a genuine capitalist company can't afford to buy tramlines just to sell them for scrap. They would go bankrupt, be unable to make cars to sell, and their competitors would eat their lunch - including a new tramline startup funded with the money GM spent to buy the tramlines. Even in 1899 GM was already "woke" capital, meaning in a Fascist public-private "partnership" with DC. I'm guessing the tramlines were forced to sell at well under 50% market price, or something isometric. Imagine they just said no...obviously that option was not on the table. "You didn't build that. Be glad you got paid at all, peasant."

Freeways don't even make money. Tax revenue negative. The towns they replaced made money.
Why couldn't the towns' mayors or whatever outbid GM's bribes? Answer: they could. However, DC is often motivated by sheer malice. The formula is consent of the governed, therefore the competition is to provoke as much dissent as you can get away with. 

If you offer an American mayor or senator a high bribe, it suggests you care deeply about the issue, and the chad thing is to make sure you get screwed. Perhaps this is why American officials can be bribed so cheaply?

P.S. The movie is dumb. The animation is extremely expensive and they got what they paid for, but the narrative and characters are on the level of finger-painting. 

By portraying real history as a cartoon fight, it associates real history with cartoonishness; not to be taken seriously. Doesn't need to be refuted, let alone confirmed. When the movie is over, forget all about it, prole. 

The movie is based on a book, and even on the first viewing I sensed there was more to the story that they were disguising or omitting. Feels unsatisfying. You can tell Roger isn't just some rabbit, he has history, but the movie doesn't care and finds the fact that you care suspiciously Un-American.