That's some writing under the influence if I've ever seen it. A shame, since the underlying argument is interesting.

I was under the influence of _deep_ rage at American traffic planners and municipal 'engineers' who commit themselves, deeply, to dehumanizing decisions, and then spend meaningful effort preventing OTHERS from tending to the spaces that they use.

It's one thing to be useless at your job. It's another thing to punch down at others trying to make their way through the world.

When I talk to professional planners, they're always so cute. "Wow, Josh, you're so interested in this domain, why don't you get into planning?"

I always say:

If you were as good at your job as you claim to be, I wouldn't need to spend my precious time trying to fix your shit. When the websites and services _I_ maintain go down, I don't expect _you_ to show up at a public meeting to 'give input' on what needs to be done. I fucking fix the thing that's broken, and until then, everyone's justifiably annoyed that the service is non-performant.

I expect minimum levels of safety and adequacy from the mobility network I use, for myself, my child, those I love, and indeed people I've never met.

I don't manage to hide my contempt for the professionals actively involved in permitting the death of tens of thousands of people _every year_.

But obviously, _obviously_, you don't have to read it.

This is the kind of elitist, holier-than-thou, attitude that created a silent majority in the first place. There's probably a middle ground here that you're alienating by using such crude stereotypes.

I'm open to understanding the people in the middle ground. Who are they, what do they want, and what do they stand for?

That's just semantics. Are you refuting that there was a large population of people in swing states that voted contrary to polling and forecasts?

No, it isn't semantics; more people voted for Clinton, therefore there is no silent majority voting for Trump; that is a fact. Yes polling overlooked a big chunk of people who voted for Trump, but that chunk is not a silent majority by any stretch of the imagination.

And what is your argument exactly? Because Clinton won the POPULAR vote by .1 percentage points you can trivialize and insult 50% of the country?

Is that a real question? Because do please show me where I'm insulting 50% of the country. Are you claiming that me saying they aren't a majority constitutes an insult? That's pretty bold, yet that's all I've said so you really can't be referring to anything else.

California and New York help Clinton's numbers quite a bit.

Nationwide, no. In those specific states, yes. It was a majority.

I bought a chromecast for nothing...