I don't think it's too ambiguous. If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. There is no alternative whatsoever. That's how our cities in America are designed and how a huge number of people live their day to day lives.
> why this would be so hard to implement
I definitely agree that it's hard to implement, but that's because of design and special interests in not implementing it. It would be cheaper for sure. You can think through it yourself because cities a long time ago (which were less complex and had less access to technology) built this way, and then as they "progressed" they built more difficult to build and more complex highways, cars, and roads. So it's easier to implement walkable cities and neighborhoods almost by definition because that's what was built first.
>"If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. There is no alternative whatsoever. "
I take challenge with this because it is hyperbolic. It is one thing to say mass transit is insufficient, but to claim there are no alternatives whatsoever is flat-out wrong. And, the claim that someone has to own a car in order to "do anything related to society in the physical world" is just as bad. People absolutely manage without this, and it also discounts all the mass transit options you already support and want to see expand.
Part of what upsets me so much about the car-critical movement is how fast and loose people play with words.
I live in the suburbs in Lewis Center, Ohio. If I want to get a coffee? I have to get in my car and drive somewhere. Groceries? Same. Gym? Well I built one in my garage, but same thing. Doctor? Off and away I go in a car. I can walk over to this pizza place, but doing so is dangerous because I have to cross a high-traffic road with a 45 mph speed limit. Very few people do it, though I do see teenagers cross the highway from time to time with skateboards and such like it's Frogger.
There isn't just no mass transit, there isn't any transit at all. There aren't any bus stops, there are no bike lanes, there's no train (and never will be) you are stuck in suburban islands where the primary way of getting from one to the other involves a rather ridiculous walk or just literally running multiple lanes of traffic.
So please don't suggest that I'm being hyperbolic or loose and fast with words here. This is what reality looks like for where I live and for many millions of Americans.
Your clarification is helpful and if you had mentioned the context of your location I would not have considered it hyperbolic. You do indeed live in an area where what you mentioned is true. Without mentioning a specific locale the context seemed as if you were making an assertion at-large.
Of course every square inch of America isn't like this, but I think enough of it is that it's a pretty substantial problem - at least from what I've visited.
> why this would be so hard to implement
I definitely agree that it's hard to implement, but that's because of design and special interests in not implementing it. It would be cheaper for sure. You can think through it yourself because cities a long time ago (which were less complex and had less access to technology) built this way, and then as they "progressed" they built more difficult to build and more complex highways, cars, and roads. So it's easier to implement walkable cities and neighborhoods almost by definition because that's what was built first.