From American Thinker
-
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
Windmills cause cancer and kill all the birds. To maintain environmental credibility, batteries are going to be charged by windmills, and Elon Musk makes battery powered cars.
Elon Musk causes cancer and kills all the birds. ALL. THE. FREAKING. BIRDS.
Any more questions?
-
I'm not clear on why or even if Musk is that much of a political lightning rod. I don't think he personally is much of a political tribalist. Though he'll happily pander to tribalists on the left with his messaging regarding the environment and how his products can save it.
-
I'm not clear on why or even if Musk is that much of a political lightning rod. I don't think he personally is much of a political tribalist. Though he'll happily pander to tribalists on the left with his messaging regarding the environment and how his products can save it.
@horace said in From American Thinker:
if Musk is that much of a political lightning rod.
Find me a conservative "news" outlet that speaks highly of Musk or Tesla. Any.
-
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk.
We had this conversation a couple years ago.
-
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk.
We had this conversation a couple years ago.
@jon-nyc said in From American Thinker:
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk.
We had this conversation a couple years ago.
And I think I responded similarly at the time.
It is reasonable to have an issue with Musk's pandering to some of the dumber environmental ideas of the left, while you know he's just interested in building his brand.
-
The argument that The Left all mindlessly follow a narrative, whilst those on the right are all free-thinkers following an objective Truth doesn't really hold water.
It should be possible to be an American conservative and also believe that an oil-driven economy is inflicting lasting damage on the global environment, just as it should be possible to be an American liberal and believe that abortion-on-demand at 28 weeks (or even 8 weeks) is not morally acceptable.
-
The argument that The Left all mindlessly follow a narrative, whilst those on the right are all free-thinkers following an objective Truth doesn't really hold water.
It should be possible to be an American conservative and also believe that an oil-driven economy is inflicting lasting damage on the global environment, just as it should be possible to be an American liberal and believe that abortion-on-demand at 28 weeks (or even 8 weeks) is not morally acceptable.
@doctor-phibes said in From American Thinker:
The argument that The Left all mindlessly follow a narrative, whilst those on the right are all free-thinkers following an objective Truth doesn't really hold water.
The most systematic difference between left- and right-leaning people I've noticed is that left-leaning people tend to be proud of their ability to let feeling and narrative overwhelm reason.
But the most common reason for people to believe what they believe and say what they say about culture war issues, is to fit in socially. People will believe whatever is most socially advantageous for them to believe. Yes, all those woke white people are actually parroting ideas that are most socially advantageous to themselves. Funny how that works.
-
@doctor-phibes said in From American Thinker:
The argument that The Left all mindlessly follow a narrative, whilst those on the right are all free-thinkers following an objective Truth doesn't really hold water.
The most systematic difference between left- and right-leaning people I've noticed is that left-leaning people tend to be proud of their ability to let feeling and narrative overwhelm reason.
But the most common reason for people to believe what they believe and say what they say about culture war issues, is to fit in socially. People will believe whatever is most socially advantageous for them to believe. Yes, all those woke white people are actually parroting ideas that are most socially advantageous to themselves. Funny how that works.
@horace said in From American Thinker:
But the most common reason for people to believe what they believe and say what they say about culture war issues, is to fit in socially. People will believe whatever is most socially advantageous for them to believe. Yes, all those woke white people are actually parroting ideas that are most socially advantageous to themselves. Funny how that works.
Works for the right, too, sorry.
-
@horace said in From American Thinker:
But the most common reason for people to believe what they believe and say what they say about culture war issues, is to fit in socially. People will believe whatever is most socially advantageous for them to believe. Yes, all those woke white people are actually parroting ideas that are most socially advantageous to themselves. Funny how that works.
Works for the right, too, sorry.
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
@horace said in From American Thinker:
But the most common reason for people to believe what they believe and say what they say about culture war issues, is to fit in socially. People will believe whatever is most socially advantageous for them to believe. Yes, all those woke white people are actually parroting ideas that are most socially advantageous to themselves. Funny how that works.
Works for the right, too, sorry.
Yes, it's a human thing, but in our current culture there is little to no social advantage, as one progresses up the status ladder, in being outwardly conservative.
-
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
@horace said in From American Thinker:
But the most common reason for people to believe what they believe and say what they say about culture war issues, is to fit in socially. People will believe whatever is most socially advantageous for them to believe. Yes, all those woke white people are actually parroting ideas that are most socially advantageous to themselves. Funny how that works.
Works for the right, too, sorry.
Yes, it's a human thing, but in our current culture there is little to no social advantage, as one progresses up the status ladder, in being outwardly conservative.
@horace said in From American Thinker:
Yes, it's a human thing, but in our current culture there is little to no social advantage, as one progresses up the status ladder, in being outwardly conservative.
I don't think Jolly has any social incentive to publicly identify with liberalism.
-
@horace said in From American Thinker:
Yes, it's a human thing, but in our current culture there is little to no social advantage, as one progresses up the status ladder, in being outwardly conservative.
I don't think Jolly has any social incentive to publicly identify with liberalism.
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
@horace said in From American Thinker:
Yes, it's a human thing, but in our current culture there is little to no social advantage, as one progresses up the status ladder, in being outwardly conservative.
I don't think Jolly has any social incentive to publicly identify with liberalism.
Hollywood celebrities, including Ellen and Oprah, would be proud and thrilled by his courage.
-
Half the problem with America is everybody seems to think that California is leading the way.
I was always under the impression that it was the nuttiest place in the world.
People try and lump Massachusetts in with them, but they're nothing alike, at least in my experience.
-
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
Generalization: People on the Right do not hate Tesla or Musk. People on the right think market forces should help decide environmental policy. If it pollutes more to produce electric cars, then perhaps we should not subsidize the production of them.
Electric cars can make sense in some applications, such as short range commuter cars or delivery vehicles, especially for a city like Los Angeles that has a smog problem, or particularly some place like Mexico City. In those cases, air quality can drive electric vehicle sales. In other cases, maybe things fleet maintenance or overall operating costs can drive the sales numbers.
In other cases, just like Tesla service vehicles in Australia, it's idiocy to promote electric cars through tax policy or subsidy. They simply do not work well in all applications, especially long distance ones. They also don't work well where the grid will not support them. I've often wondered what the Land of Rolling Blackouts (California) is going to do, as they dump massive demand from electric vehicles into their grid.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
Generalization: People on the Right do not hate Tesla or Musk. People on the right think market forces should help decide environmental policy. If it pollutes more to produce electric cars, then perhaps we should not subsidize the production of them.
Electric cars can make sense in some applications, such as short range commuter cars or delivery vehicles, especially for a city like Los Angeles that has a smog problem, or particularly some place like Mexico City. In those cases, air quality can drive electric vehicle sales. In other cases, maybe things fleet maintenance or overall operating costs can drive the sales numbers.
In other cases, just like Tesla service vehicles in Australia, it's idiocy to promote electric cars through tax policy or subsidy. They simply do not work well in all applications, especially long distance ones. They also don't work well where the grid will not support them. I've often wondered what the Land of Rolling Blackouts (California) is going to do, as they dump massive demand from electric vehicles into their grid.
@jolly said in From American Thinker:
In other cases, just like Tesla service vehicles in Australia, it's idiocy to promote electric cars through tax policy or subsidy.
Gotta remember, it's much easier in Australia to remove existing legislation than here.
-
Just reading the headline - I can see this making complete sense.
I'm thinking the biggest reason a Tesla gets stranded on the road is the battery dying.
The battery is more likely to die in places with bad charging infrastructure - therefore use a gas-powered vehicle for the rescue missions. (I'm guessing these gas powered trucks also have mobile charging infra).
I don't think Tesla would ever claim that an electric vehicle is always superior to gas in all applications.
-
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
Generalization: People on the Right do not hate Tesla or Musk. People on the right think market forces should help decide environmental policy. If it pollutes more to produce electric cars, then perhaps we should not subsidize the production of them.
Electric cars can make sense in some applications, such as short range commuter cars or delivery vehicles, especially for a city like Los Angeles that has a smog problem, or particularly some place like Mexico City. In those cases, air quality can drive electric vehicle sales. In other cases, maybe things fleet maintenance or overall operating costs can drive the sales numbers.
In other cases, just like Tesla service vehicles in Australia, it's idiocy to promote electric cars through tax policy or subsidy. They simply do not work well in all applications, especially long distance ones. They also don't work well where the grid will not support them. I've often wondered what the Land of Rolling Blackouts (California) is going to do, as they dump massive demand from electric vehicles into their grid.
@jolly said in From American Thinker:
n: People on the Right do not hate Tesla or Musk. People on the right think market forces should help decide environmental policy. If it pollutes more to produce electric cars, then perhaps we should not subsidize the production of them.
Electric cars can make sense in some applications, such as short range commuter cars or delivery vehicles, especially for a city like Los Angeles that has a smog problem, or particularly some place like Mexico City. In those cases, air quality can drive electric vehicle sales. In other cases, maybe things fleet maintenance or overall operating costs can drive the sales numbers.
In other cases, just like Tesla servicI'm usually not a proponent of government subsidies to prop up industries - but my reasons for being against it are mostly inefficiency.
China is a bit of a game changer when it comes to "strategic industries" - where a good case for subsidization is to be made.
China poured crazy amounts of money into battery tech and own manufacturing in that space. Almost all battery tech startups get eaten up by China capital now.
China pours money into silicon / compute. China is pouring money into EV.
I think we're lucky that the U.S. is the trailblazer in EV. China is trying their ass off. The customer demand is clearly there.
Fast forward 30 years. EV's are happening - do you want the U.S. as the clear leader there, or have China being a player in the car market?
Also - a mark of successful subsidization is that you can eventually take the training wheels off (subsidies) and the market doesn't collapse. I think we're seeing that with EVs.
-
@jolly said in From American Thinker:
it's idiocy to promote electric cars through tax policy or subsidy. They simply do not work well in all applications, especially long distance ones. They also don't work well where the grid will not support them.
That’s like saying it was idiocy to publicly fund the ARPANET because it did not work well in all applications and the infrastructure wasn’t there to support it everywhere. We’re still early in the game of alternative power sources for auto vehicles, like the ARPANET was early in the game of alternative methods of communications. And I say that as someone who does not plan to buy a fully electric automobile anytime soon.
-
ARPANET was a DARPA project for national security. Unless you have a persuasive argument for somehow using electric cars for delivering nukes or guided munitions, I fail to see your point.
-
ARPANET was a DARPA project for national security. Unless you have a persuasive argument for somehow using electric cars for delivering nukes or guided munitions, I fail to see your point.
@jolly said in From American Thinker:
ARPANET was a DARPA project for national security. Unless you have a persuasive argument for somehow using electric cars for delivering nukes or guided munitions, I fail to see your point.
Ever take a polaroid? Seen a dustbuster? Used velcro?
