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 -
I now interrupt your regularly scheduled WWIII/Nothing Ever Happens to ask a question:
So, the Bike discussion down below generated a lot of angst and heat, so I'd like to poll The Motte on our driving habits a bit (in the CW thread because I do fear we are going to get some strong feelings).
How do we feel about the following:
You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.
Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.
Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.
The left lane is for passing only, and also, if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off or rides your bumper, that is fine.
If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.
I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.
Any other possible driving scissor statements?
If you'd like to be mad at me: Yes, Yes, No, Yes with qualification, Yes, No.
1: Yes. Using your turn signal should be an automatic part of any anticipated lateral movement of your vehicle. You should not assume that no one is around just because you aren't aware of them.
2: Yes. You should not assume that you are aware of everyone around you. Though, I guess I really mean no to the question as written, because I don't care about a slow rolling (<5mph) stop at all under any circumstances. Any speed above 5mph, though, is just running a red light with extra steps. This is why roundabouts are superior, because when no one is there you never have to stop.
3: No. Speed limits are nearly uniformly wrong, and should be followed only inasmuch as they may be enforced. I routinely drive below the speed limit in residential neighborhoods, for fear of hitting pedestrians; I typically drive a little above the speed limit on the highway. But get me an empty rural twisty, I'm not doing 35; get me on an open highway I'm hitting a daily triple.
4: Tailgating is never ok. It is the one driving crime I think should be punished more often. When you get too close to react properly, you risk an accident, people vastly overestimate their reaction times. Nor is it fun or efficient or otherwise rewarding.
5: Yes, mostly, though I think in most cases the reason you need to come over and there isn't space is because you waited until the last minute, in which case I will not let you in and will dare you to hit me. If you know your exit is coming up, you should be in the correct lane at least 1/2 mile and preferably a mile in advance. As soon as you see a "lane ends ahead" sign you should be trying to get over. Don't ride to the very end and then expect to squeeze in.
6: I don't break any of my own rules, but I do break some of other people's rules, so I think we all come out the same.
7:
-- You can tell a lot about someone from assessing their choice of car. Even if you think your car says nothing about you, it does.
-- Cars should abide by the "Gentleman's Agreement" to stick around 300hp, and anything larger than that should be heavily taxed. 300hp is plenty to have a quick mid size sedan, a very fast small car, or a reasonably drivable large SUV/pickup truck. Capping horsepower on most cars would encourage people who want to drive fast sporty cars to buy small cars, and discourage people from driving giant SUVs and pickup trucks they can't handle too fast.
-- I don't really know that I'll ever want or trust a self driving car, but I see 75% of people on the road and I wish they had one. At the same time, if regulators don't make self-driving systems EXTREMELY conservative and predictable in their behavior, we deserve to get paperclipped.
This is a great idea. Another idea along these lines is to have a momentum limit so that any individual vehicle is limited in how much damage it can do to another. Lighter vehicles could go faster and heavier vehicles would be limited to a lower speed. Speed limits could be raised in many cases if there was a momentum limit.
Scaling liability with momentum would help too, by increasing insurance premiums for large dangerous vehicles.
I feel like if it was kept constant momentum it would just lead to a dystopia of motorcycles zooming through lumbering cybertrucks.
But if it were just a 20mph difference I'd agree completely. Big trucks and SUVs should stay at a steady 65, but let small cars and motorcycles play at 90.
How do you feel about motorcycle lane-splitting between current cars, and why?
I don't really care because they've got skin in the game in the most literal way possible.
Then would the Cybertrucks be what makes this vision "dystopian?"
Because the Cybertruck speed limit would be 1/10 the speed limit for a Honda goldwing assuming equal momentum limits.
The Goldwing is kind of the Cybertruck of motorcycles, so I don't see a problem with this. What if the rule was "kg x brake kw <= n"? ("n" might be 750,000, based on a semi-arbitrary selection of great sport-sedans, in which case a 2,000 kg truck could have a 350 kw brake power output.)
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link