EntropyIsAHoax

At least in large cities, lots of (mostly young) people are already fully on board with a largely car-free future. It's increasingly common to dream of not owning a car at all, instead of having a dream car. All of my american friends my age have some resentment that they're practically forced to own a car even in dense cities. So urban planners just need to enable a car-free lifestyle, and the shift will happen on its own.

Contrast in European and Asian cities, it is already extremely common to not own a car. In my city, even the people I know who own cars only use them for long journeys or when public transit is insufficient. And these bike/trike EVs are the dominant method for deliveries (mail, packages, food, etc... all use electric bikes) since they're cheaper to drive and maintain, drivers don't need a special commercial license, and they can be faster than traffic a lot of the time.

It's a lifestyle shift, but it's definitely doable to sell this idea.

It looks like the outboard "wing" is on the windward side. Is it actually a counterweight to prevent the vehicle from tipping over in the wind? I would have expected it to be more like a sideboard on a sailboat being a sort of leeward stabilizer.

Regardless this is absolutely crazy, hard to believe they think they can go even faster. And 22 knots isn't even that unusually fast wind (over water, speed records have more like 25-30 knots) I wonder if on land the speed improvements are more about material sciences and preventing the vehicle from breaking apart or tipping over

Wealthy landowners are not a marginalized group

No. Communists are not nazis. Communists do not advocate for the extermination of any marginalized group. I made it very clear that the opinion being expressed matters here, so I'm not sure why you'd think this is inconsistent?

So you suggest that everyone can express any opinion, no matter how inflammatory, without any repercussions? To be honest I find an absolute stance on that ridiculous. The questions I would ask are:

- what kinds of speech are unacceptable?

- what reaction does society take when someone crosses the line?

To continue on the Kanye example: essentially he lost his job, and I think that's perfectly acceptable. His employers/contractors found his speech disgusting, and fired him/ended his contracts. You can compare that to what happened with your grandma, and the only reason I think it's wrong is because I think pro-capitalism should be an "allowed" opinion, even though I disagree with it. To me the difference is that her opinion was a matter of political opinion, Kanye's directly targets jews, a marginalized group (note: in your grandma's case, "anti-worker" is no targeting a marginalized group since in a communist country the workers are definitionally not marginalized).

Every country I'm aware of (even the United States, for instance bomb threats are illegal) agrees that some speech should be prohibited. Where they disagree is what is prohibited and what the punishment is. In Germany, you can be jailed for denying the holocaust. Is that just? I don't really know but most of the Germans I've met agree with the law in this case.