site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25575 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 18, 2024

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.

7
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That truck is never going to be sold in the US because, outside of you and possibly a few other people, no one is going to buy it. As much as you and other people may complain about the lack of a small, basic truck with a five speed transmission, and 2-wheel drive, there isn't much of a market for one. Most people I know who own trucks they don't need don't own whatever the current versions of the Ranger and S-10 are, they own F-150s and Siverados and Rams and Tundras. Few people actually need a truck, and those who are buying ones they don't need want big penis trucks with huge engines and high towing capacity and 4-wheel drive and and interior like a Cadillac, not some 90 hp puttmobile. They'd sell about as well as those old VW Rabbit trucks that had their fans but didn't exactly take the country by storm.

Except frontiers and tacomas sell like hotcakes, and so do ford mavericks. That little Honda truck kinda does but it definitely does enough business to keep in business. Ford rangers and dodge Dakotas have a flourishing used market.

Japs have no difficulty selling compact trucks, nor do used car dealers more generally. And point of fact when American auto manufacturers introduce compact trucks they sell very well indeed.

For some reason- probably the regulatory one avocadopanic is gesturing at- there’s simply not a lot of compact trucks being produced.

Now owning a full sized pickup truck is a status symbol, that’s true, and it’s one of the few things Detroit stays competitive at(japmobile full sized trucks don’t have quite the same cache), but I see more Nissan frontiers on the road than any other model of truck and I live in one of the top-10 wealthiest red tribe areas in the country.

I was partially being facetious, but I don't think that size is the main problem. 90 hp is going to be a tough sell, considering that there aren't many cars on the American market anymore that get less than 100. Even a base model Corolla gets nearly twice the HP. Rear wheel drive is basically a nonstarter. The only people I know who have 2wd trucks are contractors. I know people who have been looking for used small trucks for a long time, and when I worked for the Boy Scouts we'd occasionally have a work truck we were getting rid of. I remember one was available, it needed a flywheel but they'd have let it go for $200. Everyone lost interest when I told them it was 2wd, because there's nothing fun about a 2wd Ranger. And while I have no real basis for this, I'd be willing to bet that the interior is chintzy as hell. I don't think it's that people don't want smaller trucks, it's that they don't want that specific small truck.

Ah, I see. You’re correct- Americans don’t want the kinds of base model cars that are commonplace in other countries, those base model Nissan frontiers that sell so well are still a lot more luxurious than Chinese or Mexican model cars. Heck, commercial vehicles tend to be more luxurious than the average car on the street in China.

Americans don’t want the kinds of base model cars that are commonplace in other countries

Americans aren't really given the choice.

Many of the trucks I see in use commercially are much larger than they need to be for their role. Larger more expensive trucks then add to the overhead of many businesses that rely on them. You have to mow many more lawns at higher rates to move your equipment with a current year truck than a compact truck from the 1980's. Unless you needed the towing capacity the s-10 1/4 ton pickup adequate for many roles and were ubiquitous on job sites when I was a teen. We were still using 1970's Datsuns.

The interiors were spartan, I miss bench seats.

Most people I know who own trucks they don't need don't own whatever the current versions of the Ranger and S-10 are, they own F-150s and Siverados and Rams and Tundras.

There is no modern version of the Ranger and the S-10, and the used market for Rangers and S-10s is an obscenity that shows just how much Americans do want small basic trucks. A 2010 Ranger with 150,000 miles on it will easily go for $15,000. A similar Ranger with less than 100,000 miles on it can break $20,000. I saw one 2011 with 50,000 miles listed for $28,000 - and I have no doubt it has already sold.

You can buy a pretty basic Nissan frontier if you want, and in fact lots of people do.

I second @AvocadoPanic, I think that the economic incentives via CAFE standards on automakers have made superhuge trucks artificially competitive in the market.

I think you may be underestimating the degree CAFE standards have made trucks giant in the US.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats