Earlier, you made a post where the whole end chunk was about how going without plastic bags assumes the use of a car.
Then someone disagreed, with detailed examples about how it's not dependent on a car.
You interpreted this as condescension and not trying to understand you. What the hell? They were disagreeing with a part of your argument that wasn't about you at all, since you don't have a car.
They weren't dismissing you because of anything you are.
Also, being able to name a way a policy hurts some particular poor or disabled person doesn't mean it's overall bad for that group. For example: Plastic bags can hurt some poor people that can't easily use alternatives. But when bags aren't free then groceries themselves will be slightly cheaper. This will benefit a different subset of poor people.
Sometimes other people want to add nuance, too. Disagreement with part of what you say is not dismissing you.
Earlier, you made a post where the whole end chunk was about how going without plastic bags assumes the use of a car.
Then someone disagreed, with detailed examples about how it's not dependent on a car.
You interpreted this as condescension and not trying to understand you. What the hell? They were disagreeing with a part of your argument that wasn't about you at all, since you don't have a car.
They weren't dismissing you because of anything you are.
Also, being able to name a way a policy hurts some particular poor or disabled person doesn't mean it's overall bad for that group. For example: Plastic bags can hurt some poor people that can't easily use alternatives. But when bags aren't free then groceries themselves will be slightly cheaper. This will benefit a different subset of poor people.
Sometimes other people want to add nuance, too. Disagreement with part of what you say is not dismissing you.