Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you take cars away from every group equally, then the poor are the least capable of finding an alternative (because they usually cost). In fact, if you take anything from the entire population in equal measure, its bound to affect the poor the most (because they’re the least capable of finding alternatives to the status quo). So in any such argument, they’d naturally become the front of the topic. If anyone is goi…
Then why have any standards at all, if any expectations are discrimination?
You're going to build blanket standards and rules without acknowledging its effects on the population, and the proportion of the effects on different groups within that population?
Without accounting for the migration process to the new standard?
Without trying to minimize damage across the groups?
Addendum:
There is a world that exists, and there is an ideal image of the world. We aren't going to suddenly transfer to the ideal version, but we're perfectly capable of pretending we can in law. Congress is perfectly capable of arbitrarily requiring that all cars today meet 50mpg, and declaring it law. But we do not want to do that, because it would stupid, and shut down industries and cities across the nation.
Regardless of whether this is what our ideal looks like, it's not a suggestion that takes us anywhere near it. When someone goes around advocating for it to people who do not already agree with it, the first question is whats wrong with it? And the first answer inevitably features the poor, because they're the most affected. And the next question is, by how much? And again, the best example is the poor, because they bear the brunt of the negatives.
Everyone else will also eat shit, but they get the most of it, and so they show it off the most, making for the clearest example of what damages a blanket policy might incur.