This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Assuming that I'm confident that there are no cops, and I'm driving a good sports car, and I'm in the mood? I'd probably touch 130mph, carry 95-100mph.
Summer of Covid, when I was driving back and forth on an empty PA turnpike in a drop top twin turbo A4 quattro, I would consistently take it up to a daily triple, and just zip through the handful of cars on the road like they were standing still. When you're going 120 and they're going 80, it's like dodging obstacles at 40, it's fun.
On the other hand, if I'm in a more quotidian car and I'm just trying to get somewhere, probably in the 80-85mph range? That's normally a pretty comfortable speed, and I'm not too worried about getting pulled over, and really you have to hold 100 for an hour or more to see much benefit on travel time on the highway, and at that point it's kinda stressful.
I find cyclists annoying, but the behavior you describe ctually makes me angry. You either have no idea of the panic response this can generate in slower drivers or you don't care. In either case, it's reckless and obnoxious.
I mean obviously I've been passed on the highway by someone else going 120 when I was going the speed limit so I know how it feels... Panic response? Lol. Lmao.
I think they're imagining it as if they were standing still, and you zip past at 120. People aren't good at imagining speeds compared to anything other than stopped.
Charitably I think I should have precisely specified traffic conditions. There are indeed times when it is inappropriate and antisocial to drive 120mph, I happen to think I choose appropriate ones. My interlocutors are picturing others.
Less charitably, I don't think they're used to driving like that and imagine it as more hazardous and less fun than it is.
Uncharitably, I think being this angry at people for speeding is a deeply effeminate behavior.
Lmao I am stealing this framing. And yeah, I remember seeing on the ABC a study showed that in Australia 70% of people are unlikely to ever drive above 120 km/h, let alone miles. My perception of speed is poor in the opposite direction - as a kid I couldn't really believe the speeds in Australia - we have to do 50km/h in suburbs? Why not just walk?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
are you aware that you are causing more danger than all cyclists being complained about in this thread taken together?
when did I complain about cyclists?
minimal traffic was specified, so we're looking at fairly minor danger, swerving around three other cars.
If you were swerving around other cars, I think your idea of "minimal traffic" is different than others'. Minimal traffic, to me, would be too few cars to accidentally get in each others' way.
More options
Context Copy link
by "cyclists being complained about in this thread taken together" I meant entire comment tree, not only specifically comments you authored
But that metric is meaningless. I didn't complain about bicycles because I respect bicycles on the road, I'm in more rural areas normally but when I see a bicycle I take care to slow down well behind him and wait for a LARGE open space in traffic to pass him in the opposing lane. Sometimes if I'm going to be behind him a while I put my flashers on to make sure people behind me know I'm going slower for a reason. I don't think bicycles are significantly inconvenient or dangerous.
Nor do I think responsible speeding at an appropriate time in an appropriate vehicle is significantly dangerous.
It's like @SecureSignals telling me "You went to law school? You're worse than all the Jews in this thread!"
Why? Bicycles are typically considerably slower than slow motor vehicle traffic, they're shorter, and they're narrower. You can pass them with much less space than you could pass a typical car. (The people demanding 1m of passing room should be laughed at; if your ass is that wide you shouldn't be on the road. Just don't hit me or push me over with the airstream)
I see fairly few bicycles in my area, and I have a fear of killing someone, which can be easily allayed by simply taking a minute out of my day and waiting for a really clear spot to pass. If it were a constant problem, I probably couldn't do that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Weaving at 130MPH on the interstate when there's cars on the road is antisocial behavior and I sincerely hope you age out of this before you kill someone.
Right! Why do people rage at cyclists and just casually drop stuff like this and hardly anyone bats an eye.
(I also think speed limits should be higher, but there are safe ways to do that - see Germany)
If you're driving merely to get from point A to point B, taking less time is a win. If you're driving for pleasure, faster is more pleasurable. (And the same goes for cycling)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link