OK, a bit of clickbait there but that is the sentiment of Lloyd over at Treehugger (the Land of the Eco-Socialist Warriors). I continue to go over to represent Free Markets and the Liberty of Choices but this one was a hard nut to crack. The background is that Lloyd just plain hates all cars and wants us all to live in “walkable” city neighborhoods where anything beyond a couple of blocks means you are stuck with some kind of public transit (been there, lived there, done there – not going back unless forced to). This time, he decided that a rant of “Why do pickup trucks have such aggressive front ends?” should serve as sufficient (dontcha know that pickup trucks are EVIL because they are too big?) reason to get them off the road. Ho-hum…..
What also crept into the comments area was the same, tired, and rhetorically null argument that guys are compensating for some lack in their own upstairs and downstairs that the anti-gunners use in THEIR jeremiad for civilian disarmament. Again, these folks expose themselves for what they are – the New Puritans who demand that only a single code of ethics exist for all people and that it isn’t your’s. Meaning, bow in submission to their superior moral authority for “gun violence” and GAIA worship. Infractions mean EVERYONE IS GONNA DIE – and you will be cast into their hell (which, in their case, is jail).
So, let the comments begin and let’s get the sexual innuendo out of the way real quick (some reformatting, emphasis mine):
Bob Baal: I always though that guys who drive these are trying to compensate for poor performance in the bedroom. Or so several women who should know have told me. I drive a small car.
fcfcfc : LMAO… very, very small right…LOL…
Such wit, these two! And this one was was rather condescending of the choices that some would definitely make if allowed to make (er….). The overriding belief is that people will ALWAYS fall for the marketing Narratives that big companies put out. These folks ALWAYS believe that Big Biz is EVIL – but the rest of us (excepting them, of course) fall for every word. That’s why pickup trucks are big sellers – because we are told to buy them (as well as the “compensating factors” already mentioned above – so how does that work with all the women that buy such as well?):
JD McDonnell: People would drive tanks if you let them. That is what the ambient level of fear is at, especially out in red state America.
And buttressed by this guy again:
fcfcfc: Hi: Sure, how do you gauge the successful selling of a narrative(s)? Answer: When the public at large start lining up their behavior and “views” behind it. …..Bill
The thought that folks might need such a vehicle does exist – but ONLY those folks, like those in the trades – should be legally allowed to buy them (of course, with higher taxes applied because GLOBAL WARMING and CO2). Remember, if folks like Bill are for this kind of stuff, they live in a bubble and have NO empathy for others that have other viewpoints – including “arms” of any type. Two of us tried to point out that JD was out of order – that you can own military tanks:
Thomas Prewitt: You can legally own a tank as long as the weapons are removed and drive it on the roads.
Actually, if you have an FFL Class 3 / Destructive Device license (or so says my friend who had that and specialized in private sales of cannons and howitzers), you can. Not too hep with treaded tanks as they rip up the asphalt but tire equipped one (e.g., not a battle tank) is fine.
But the above are really just side issues but does incorporate a lot of their debating technique – ridicule those “Others not like us” and if they can’t see a “need” for something in their lives, well, because they are so smart, you shouldn’t be allowed to have a “need” that they don’t need. The fact that others wish to make other choices has no place in their world view.
This next part gets to the heart of the matter. Again, the theme was that both you and I are too dumb to think for ourselves and that THEY must do the thinking for us:
Mr T: All this is true, but why is the average person so stupid that they simply believe the narrative and fall for the con? I guess the old adage that people are easily conned is true, certainly seems to be, look at the woeful politicians they keep voting in. Really, it all boils down to the fact that the average person is pretty stupid, has a big ego (it’s all about me, me me!) and no ability to think things through rationally and analytically. Not a good combination, but it explains why we are in the mess that we are in.
And this is where I try to push back and why I implore other Liberty minded folks to not just stay in your comfortable Conservatarian bubble with like minded folks BECAUSE folks like Mr. T, Bill, Lloyd, and the others truly believe they are waging a religious war to save something – and you from yourselves. If there are no pushbacks from you, our dear readers, if there are no debates on moral, logical, financial, et al grounds, then the above is what they believe and their condescending outlook will prevail.
granitegrok: Mostly for this reason – your reasoning appeals to you and many others here. To the majority of Americans, it doesn’t and is shown by empirical data – they are buying more trucks and SUVs because either they do need them for work OR they just like them. Once again, you make the prime reason that EVIL companies force folks to buy their wares. Sure, they do marketing but it seems to many here that is the SOLE reason. That’s not right.
I don’t watch much TV, I throw away the automakers’ mail and email. The reason I like a pickup? I just like it. Period. No other reason than that. Just like others prefer sedans (like The Most Esteemed Wife), some like motorcycles, and others like other things. I prefer laptops over desktops or tablets.
And just because I just like it, I buy it – I have the financial resources to do so and I have the Freedom of Choice to do so. You folks are all happy-dappy to take that Freedom away. Remember, once you have government do that to others, somebody else, seeing that, will have the urge to do it right back at you. That’s what happens when you weaponize Government for your personal whim
Deaf ears and the continuing idea that we’re all just stupid and don’t know what we’re doing. They MUST step in to save us from ourselves (and in this case, our wallets) as they merely dismiss OUR reasons as, well, being stupid:
Robert du Lac: Transportation studies show that only about 4% of truck owners use their trucks for their originally designed purpose. The remaining 96%, it’s a commuting vehicle. Confirmation bias and post-hoc rationalization are attempted to justify their financial illiteracy as it relieves their anxiety (and yes, I do mean financial illiteracy, because the actual costs of a truck exceed $100,000 over a decade compared to any other vehicle that services over 99% of their actual needs). Here are some of the nearly verbatim excuses I have read online:
– “I use my truck to haul yards of dirt all the time”,
– “I haul my 5th wheel trailer out on the back roads every weekend”
– “I live in the mountains where I have to fjord two streams”
– “I went off-roading once and it was icy, therefore I drive my 4×4 daily in case I need to do it again”,
– “I have a big family, and I can’t fit all our stuff in anything but a pick-up truck”
Psychological studies on the underlying reasons why people own big pickup trucks is very simple: it is an attempted display at wealth and power. That’s it.
They just don’t want to understand that others have different reasons. They ALSO are highly incensed with the “because I can” flippant answer (even if true – but that pushes them off the edge even more).
granitegrok: And sometimes, it’s just a case of preferring a truck over a car, period.
And I do believe that truck owners understand the finances of owning such a truck – calling it illiteracy simply because you have a different outlook on it isn’t “inclusive of diversity” (there, did I get that phrase right that I hear from those on the Left side of the aisle correct)?
No, it doesn’t matter if we use their words or not because then they just keep redefining words, or psychological terms, to suit themselves.
Diversity. Inclusive. Even as they say it, they don’t mean it. In each and every case that we can, we have to bring the verbal / written battle back to them. There is no “Diversity” and there is no “Inclusiveness” other than as talking points. We have to get the idea in front of them, and to those on the sidelines who just want to be left alone, that their Diversity really means “Monoculture” and that “Inclusive” really means “only if you agree with us. Their Diversity is skin deep and their Inclusive is really “Exclusive of ideas we hate”.
Thus, I go over to Treehugger often to bring this struggle to them.
And let’s finish up this part where they started:
Al_Packer: They want aggressive-looking vehicles to compensate for the shrinking of their privates due to the phthalates in the environment. And, let’s cut through the cra0p here; most of what’s selling now are over-sized cars with open trunks. There is nothing on the market that qualifies as a useful truck (single row seating, 8′ bed, rubber floor mats, etc.), and nothing that makes me want to open my checkbook.
granitegrok: It’s always about the sexual innuendo, it seems. That’s lazy rhetoric and wins environmentalists no friends at all. Remember, Americans came from rebellious stock from the get go – a lot of us still don’t want to be told by our “betters” what we can or cannot do.
“You don’t need that” – the “tell” of Progressives I’ve been saying for years. In each and every case it means a lessening of Liberty of all due to the actions of a few. Look, if they want to drive small cars, if they want to drive electric cars, if they want to live in walkable neighborhoods and public transportation, knock yourselves out. And I told one that as well (with a doubled down response back) who happens to be an EV / small vehicle only fanatic:
Brian: Why is it that 95% of the time, I see only one or two people in these dangerous big sport pickup trucks or SUV’s, and they aren’t hauling anything? These large vehicles like SUV’s and big sport pickup trucks should be banned. If someone wants to haul something, they can rent a truck. One or two people don’t need a 5 ton cage made of steel, to go 6 miles to a grocery store. Families may need a minivan, but they don’t need a massive oversized SUV. Their are far too many of these dangerous large vehicles on the road. We also need to reduce speed limits down to 30 MPH in cities and towns. Over 40,000 people die each year on our roadways, a high percentage of these deaths occur on city streets that exceed 30 MPH. Studies have shown that reduced speed limits minimize serious injuries and death from car accidents. People should also downsize, and use safer vehicles like the ELF and PEBL instead of always using a car for short trips in cities and towns. Protected bike lanes also need to be built on every major street to get more people out of cars. It’s time for Americans to end their car centric bigotry, and stop selfishly worshiping dangerous big oversized vehicles, when better safer options exist. Let’s make our streets safer, instead of more dangerous by allowing people to drive these 5 ton steel cage death machines.
granitegrok: The “tell” of a Progressive – “you don’t need that”.
And then he repeated himself for good measure. The danger is that they truly wish to remove such choices from us all. And they really don’t care.
I just thought you might want to know.