So I made a passing comment of "it's almost like private car ownership is a really inefficient use of space and resources" the other day, which I didn't really pay much mind to. But all the replies were either explaining the concept of public transportation as if I don't know that's the solution to private car dependence (not in a constructive way adding to my comment or anything, I got the sense that they were trying to explain the concept to me) and someone even basically said "well I'm sure you think urban sprawl is an efficient use of space then."
Are the "normies" this oblivious to how anti-car sentiments work? Do they think we're against the concept of a metal thing with four wheels and not its effects on urban development and society? Why the hell would I be against public transit or pro urban sprawl if I hate cars? Cities before cars were invented had public transit and were tightly packed and walkable. You don't think I support that?
Most people can't actually read that well, so there's that. And also once things get into political boxes people are going to be clumsy at putting you into the correct box, assuming there even is one. Anonymity and the passive-aggressive dunks on sites like Reddit and Twitter encourage this. It feels like they're trying to out-manoeuvre rhetorically so they can't get pwned.