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 -
They can't pass safety regulations. Chinese (and Mexicans, and Brazilians) are happy just to have a car and really don't care so much that they're guaranteed to die even in a single-vehicle accident at highway speeds; in a car that passes American/Euro standards, even vehicular suicide attempts (cliffs and head-ons with semis) are survivable in most cases.
Fortunately, since safety regulations are just protectionism by another name the Chinese cars that can pass safety are probably going to be price-competitive with Kia and Hyundai and still have their teething "lol the engine exploded, hope you're still in warranty" years to go; I'm not sure there's a market for that.
Maybe they can defend the US market but they can't defend all markets. Tesla doesn't seem to be price-competitive with what's coming out of China, they're losing market share globally.
Everyone seems to be focused on the US car market but the US does have exports. If you lose in world markets that's also quite bad!
More options
Context Copy link
Some figures pulled from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita):
US: 12.9 traffic deaths per year per 100000 inhabitants in 2021, $80412 GDP per capita according to IMF estimate in 2023.
Mexico: 12.8 traffic deaths per year per 100000 inhabitants in 2019, $13804 GDP per capita according to IMF estimate in 2023.
Brazil: 16.0 traffic deaths per year per 100000 inhabitants in 2019, $10413 GDP per capita according to IMF estimate in 2023.
These figures may be inaccurate for various reasons, for example less accurate reporting in poorer countries. However, I think they still would not suggest that the correlation between personal wealth and traffic fatalities is not necessarily as drastic as you are suggesting.
There is some data in favor of your argument. For example, the Dominican Republic's figures are 64.6 traffic deaths per year per 100000 inhabitants in 2019, $11249 GDP per capita according to IMF estimate in 2023. But as you see, given the Mexican and Brazilian figures, that does not establish a strong connection.
China's figure is 17.4 traffic deaths per year per 100000 inhabitants in 2019, $12541 GDP per capita according to IMF estimate in 2023. So despite driving obviously a lot more Chinese cars than Americans do, Chinese seem to be dying in traffic incidents only about 4/3 times as much.
I think what you’re ignoring is that Mexico, Brazil, China, and the Dominican Republic drive far fewer miles on average per inhabitant, so similar or higher rates of death from traffic accidents per inhabitant speaks to a much more dangerous driving experience.
Now in the case of Mexico specifically I would point to the poor behavior of Mexican drivers, especially Mexican bus drivers, as a bigger reason than the lack of safety features on Mexican cars. And for all of these countries there’s probably a higher percentage of motorcycle use, which is extremely dangerous. But those numbers aren’t actually evidence for middle income countries having the same approach to vehicular safety as the USA; rather the opposite in fact.
Hmm, yeah that's a good point that they probably drive far fewer miles in Mexico, Brazil, and China. I didn't think of that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not even suggesting that; what I am suggesting is that countries that have less personal wealth are likely to see traffic deaths or serious injuries as an acceptable cost. (China's official figures are 17.4/100000, but note that none of those figures are accounting for persistent injury after the fact.)
It is probably worth noting that most of the safety regulations have diminishing returns; really, a mid-2000s car is 90% as safe as a mid-2020s car is (outside of the fact that most 2020s "cars" are SUVs). So objectively, maybe the new breed of Chinese cars are safe from a mid-2000s standpoint and that is all you need if you're not infected with a terminal case of safetyism, but that's not how Western governments (even the ones that don't have socialized medicine) will see it.
(And that's ignoring that the safer cars are more dangerous for those around them; personally, I'd rather die in a rollover than hit a pedestrian my rollover protection forced me to be blind to, but that's just me.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is how tariffs will happen in practice, most likely.
With the correct regulation, U.S. automakers may be able to survive in the U.S. I'd say their overseas operations (already money-losing) are doomed. Oddly, it may be the Japanese and South Korean makers who suffer the most as they will lose the third world market.
Sadly, the Islamist guerillas of the 2030s will be riding in Chinese pickups, not Toyotas.
Maybe then I'll finally be able to get a decent hi-lux
More options
Context Copy link
Even better, they're already in the business of decreasing the number of Toyota trucks in the world.
Create the trucks, then create the weapons that blow up the trucks, create demand for more trucks. Brilliant.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link