No ban them.
99%> don't need them and the downsides of al these pickups (pollution, traffic congestion, safety) outweigh your reasons.
Also it is not like there are only 2 types of car hatchback/pickup, maybe next time get a station wagon.
Just because dudes in the country feel like they need a huge truck doesn't mean that they actually do. I'm guessing there's far more F250s with heated cupholders and blacked-out rims on the road than ones schlepping ATVs around. If you're spending $50k on what's essentially a minivan with a flatbed, you're more concerned with the signifiers of masculinity than a vehicle with utility.
There are absolutely a lot of good reasons for people working in rural areas to want a pickup. These people who need these are also probably not the people driving brand new F250s, and are either using smaller, cheaper vehicles like the hilux or the ranger or substantially depreciated used models.
Yes, there are people driving huge luxury vehicles disguised as manly tools to their office job even in the rural areas, but being that you've obviously never been to these areas, how exactly are you in a position to know that, ackshwally, they're all posers and don't need it?
Where did I say that they're all posers? Like I said elsewhere, 4/5 vehicles sold in this Canada are SUV or pickups. The vast majority of those aren't cheaper, practical models, they're lifestyle trucks. I'm not saying nobody actually needs a pickup, I'm saying most people don't - or at the least don't need a gigantic vehicle with weapons-grade emissions when 95% of their driving is spent on the highway.
Actually just baffled at the leap from "Some people need pickups" to "All trucks are good, actually, you out of touch lib"
You've jumped into a thread in which someone was advocating a total ban, that's the source of confusion. I don't think anyone here disagrees that a great many truck owners could suffice with a smaller, lighter vehicle.
And to add on to this, there ARE in fact people who need large trucks to, for example, transport large agricultural equipment. F-250s and shit have a purpose. Just because YOU (generally; not you, Vostok) haven't seen one used correctly doesn't prove otherwise.
Just because dudes in the country feel like they need a huge truck doesn’t mean that they actually do.
So would you say they're capturing the aesthetic of the material base of their environment? Like the successful farmers they're trying to emulate who are successful because they use those trucks for their designed purpose? The vehicle has utility in the same way a gun has utility. Banning the vehicle because chuds culturally identify with it is as stupid as banning guns because of the same association. It economically undermines the people who ensure you ate this morning. It undermines the working class most impacted by increases in food prices because farm operations are suddenly less efficient. It sends the reactionary elements of the countryside into a rabid frenzy, a legitimate one and one that's blatantly urban liberals jerking themselves off over consumer emissions while concentrating wealth and turning those same rural areas into the hinterlands. Which specific metric are you solving by erasing a specific class of truck, or even pickup trucks in general, for which the benefit outweighs the obvious social and material consequences? And before you answer, the people you'll inflame also live next to the infrastructure sustaining you and they can legally buy explosives.
That's pretty much exactly how it'd play out. If a roadsign says something people around here don't like they shoot it with military-grade weapons. When big ole dang ole antifers broke some windows in a city 50 miles away, everyone around me casually switched to terrorism plans they're fully capable of doing. This area directly supplies power and water to the entire urban corridor who'd push for a truck ban. The arterial roads and railways go through it and dozens of areas like it before connecting cities. Even if it wasn't my own material base and that of the only other socialist I know of in this area, Y'all Qaeda isn't going to be helped or hindered by us.
edit: And this is a Bernie state people like us move to in order to escape the dangerous states.
I don't think you deserve to be shot. I think the obvious consequence of fucking with a population that hates you, that either directly or vicariously lives through the thing you're taking away, is them reacting like you'd expect them to. They don't need my encouragement to shoot anyone, only the barest justification to do so. You're attacking their private property, and if anything in a way that's a step up from dun takin' mah guns because it's the livelihood of them or someone they're directly connected to. I'm a Leninist and you're saying I shouldn't be able to efficiently grow mushrooms, unless you want me to upgrade to a worse truck by any material metric you haven't supplied, when those mushrooms are both my survival and the basis for my political project. You're saying I shouldn't be able to rehab animals unless you want to give me the keys to your car the next time I work with an aggressive ostrich or a shit-caked sheep or a horse. Those are things that at the very least make me apathetic to what the chuds will obviously do when your Nancy Pelosi-ass idea to solve climate change or toxic masculinity becomes policy.
This is unironically the 30-50 feral hogs argument but for a car, my dude. Nobody's saying you can't drive your mushrooms around. But pretending that you need a luxury lifestyle vehicle to do so isn't revolutionary.
The sale of new ICE vehicles will be banned in most of the western world by 2035. That's policy that people are going to have to accept, and even that is going to be too late to meaningfully impact climate collapse. People will go down kicking and screaming about their precious coal roller, I'm sure. In the meantime, defending this literal death drive of inefficient, impractical vehicles as lifestyle choice is absurd.
There are a handful of truck models I'd call luxury lifestyle vehicles. If your qualifier is just big truck, is your proletarian lifestyle alternative going to be multiple trips with a smaller truck or the same number of trips for the required volume with a larger and less efficient truck? Those cargo trucks will still need to exist to carry the food to your urban grocery that entirely depends on the efficient operation of people carrying heavy loads in their big trucks. 30-50 feral hogs makes sense in the context of Texan fields overrun by feral hogs. Where you're wrong is that you're privileged enough to not have to deal with work environments that all have 30-50 feral hogs running around. When those hogs are the most basic level of the entire logistics system and the bulk of this country's landscape, that argument means something real to a much larger number of people. It's not Texas farmers who need to shoot hogs, it's every farmer everywhere and everyone who identifies with farmers like Appalachians identify with coal miners. Give me something better than an AR-15 to kill hogs with or accept that you don't have to kill hogs because other people do for you, people you're alienating to your detriment.
Someone else is advocating mass murder of F-150 drivers here, it's the fucking internet and irony-poisoned Hexbear.net in particular, please spare us all this faux indignation.
Never mind the fact that that user was making a point about country people's capacity for terrorism broadly, not about whether you in particular deserve to die.
i grew up in the country and rural exceptionalism makes me want barf two times and die. get over yourself, honey. your grandpa got by just fine with a truck practically half the size in every metric
There are tractors being used today that are double the weight of anything commercially available 50 years ago, and having them allows more efficient farming practices. A gas powered tractor in the 1950s (which most were) might be less than 12 feet across, things have changed drastically since then. If there aren’t large pickups available for farm trucks, semis will need to be used to transport them.
If your point of view was defensible, you wouldn’t need to mischaracterize every view that contradicts it. What is gained from transparently lying to yourself?
Yeah but my car is the modern version of a station wagon. As infrastructure decays and climate change creates more weather extremes, the problems facing that 1% which grows your food will expand. That's not advocating for wider truck usage, only showing that there's a perfectly reasonable argument for owning one.
No ban them. 99%> don't need them and the downsides of al these pickups (pollution, traffic congestion, safety) outweigh your reasons. Also it is not like there are only 2 types of car hatchback/pickup, maybe next time get a station wagon.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Online leftists, I am once again asking you to get out of the city.
Just because dudes in the country feel like they need a huge truck doesn't mean that they actually do. I'm guessing there's far more F250s with heated cupholders and blacked-out rims on the road than ones schlepping ATVs around. If you're spending $50k on what's essentially a minivan with a flatbed, you're more concerned with the signifiers of masculinity than a vehicle with utility.
There are absolutely a lot of good reasons for people working in rural areas to want a pickup. These people who need these are also probably not the people driving brand new F250s, and are either using smaller, cheaper vehicles like the hilux or the ranger or substantially depreciated used models.
Yes, there are people driving huge luxury vehicles disguised as manly tools to their office job even in the rural areas, but being that you've obviously never been to these areas, how exactly are you in a position to know that, ackshwally, they're all posers and don't need it?
Where did I say that they're all posers? Like I said elsewhere, 4/5 vehicles sold in this Canada are SUV or pickups. The vast majority of those aren't cheaper, practical models, they're lifestyle trucks. I'm not saying nobody actually needs a pickup, I'm saying most people don't - or at the least don't need a gigantic vehicle with weapons-grade emissions when 95% of their driving is spent on the highway.
Actually just baffled at the leap from "Some people need pickups" to "All trucks are good, actually, you out of touch lib"
You've jumped into a thread in which someone was advocating a total ban, that's the source of confusion. I don't think anyone here disagrees that a great many truck owners could suffice with a smaller, lighter vehicle.
And to add on to this, there ARE in fact people who need large trucks to, for example, transport large agricultural equipment. F-250s and shit have a purpose. Just because YOU (generally; not you, Vostok) haven't seen one used correctly doesn't prove otherwise.
So would you say they're capturing the aesthetic of the material base of their environment? Like the successful farmers they're trying to emulate who are successful because they use those trucks for their designed purpose? The vehicle has utility in the same way a gun has utility. Banning the vehicle because chuds culturally identify with it is as stupid as banning guns because of the same association. It economically undermines the people who ensure you ate this morning. It undermines the working class most impacted by increases in food prices because farm operations are suddenly less efficient. It sends the reactionary elements of the countryside into a rabid frenzy, a legitimate one and one that's blatantly urban liberals jerking themselves off over consumer emissions while concentrating wealth and turning those same rural areas into the hinterlands. Which specific metric are you solving by erasing a specific class of truck, or even pickup trucks in general, for which the benefit outweighs the obvious social and material consequences? And before you answer, the people you'll inflame also live next to the infrastructure sustaining you and they can legally buy explosives.
this is like Robert Evans' It Could Happen Here in post format
That's pretty much exactly how it'd play out. If a roadsign says something people around here don't like they shoot it with military-grade weapons. When big ole dang ole antifers broke some windows in a city 50 miles away, everyone around me casually switched to terrorism plans they're fully capable of doing. This area directly supplies power and water to the entire urban corridor who'd push for a truck ban. The arterial roads and railways go through it and dozens of areas like it before connecting cities. Even if it wasn't my own material base and that of the only other socialist I know of in this area, Y'all Qaeda isn't going to be helped or hindered by us.
edit: And this is a Bernie state people like us move to in order to escape the dangerous states.
Love the implication that somebody getting told their dick truck is destroying the planet unnecessarily means I deserve to get shot, thanks
I don't think you deserve to be shot. I think the obvious consequence of fucking with a population that hates you, that either directly or vicariously lives through the thing you're taking away, is them reacting like you'd expect them to. They don't need my encouragement to shoot anyone, only the barest justification to do so. You're attacking their private property, and if anything in a way that's a step up from dun takin' mah guns because it's the livelihood of them or someone they're directly connected to. I'm a Leninist and you're saying I shouldn't be able to efficiently grow mushrooms, unless you want me to upgrade to a worse truck by any material metric you haven't supplied, when those mushrooms are both my survival and the basis for my political project. You're saying I shouldn't be able to rehab animals unless you want to give me the keys to your car the next time I work with an aggressive ostrich or a shit-caked sheep or a horse. Those are things that at the very least make me apathetic to what the chuds will obviously do when your Nancy Pelosi-ass idea to solve climate change or toxic masculinity becomes policy.
This is unironically the 30-50 feral hogs argument but for a car, my dude. Nobody's saying you can't drive your mushrooms around. But pretending that you need a luxury lifestyle vehicle to do so isn't revolutionary.
The sale of new ICE vehicles will be banned in most of the western world by 2035. That's policy that people are going to have to accept, and even that is going to be too late to meaningfully impact climate collapse. People will go down kicking and screaming about their precious coal roller, I'm sure. In the meantime, defending this literal death drive of inefficient, impractical vehicles as lifestyle choice is absurd.
There are a handful of truck models I'd call luxury lifestyle vehicles. If your qualifier is just big truck, is your proletarian lifestyle alternative going to be multiple trips with a smaller truck or the same number of trips for the required volume with a larger and less efficient truck? Those cargo trucks will still need to exist to carry the food to your urban grocery that entirely depends on the efficient operation of people carrying heavy loads in their big trucks. 30-50 feral hogs makes sense in the context of Texan fields overrun by feral hogs. Where you're wrong is that you're privileged enough to not have to deal with work environments that all have 30-50 feral hogs running around. When those hogs are the most basic level of the entire logistics system and the bulk of this country's landscape, that argument means something real to a much larger number of people. It's not Texas farmers who need to shoot hogs, it's every farmer everywhere and everyone who identifies with farmers like Appalachians identify with coal miners. Give me something better than an AR-15 to kill hogs with or accept that you don't have to kill hogs because other people do for you, people you're alienating to your detriment.
muh rugged self-reliance manufactured in mexico and fueled by petrochemicals shipped literally halfway around the world
muh ability to afford food in muh pampered interdependence.
Someone else is advocating mass murder of F-150 drivers here, it's the fucking internet and irony-poisoned Hexbear.net in particular, please spare us all this faux indignation.
Never mind the fact that that user was making a point about country people's capacity for terrorism broadly, not about whether you in particular deserve to die.
You misunderstood the comment
GOOD POST
Yeah I literally said this in another post ITT.
i grew up in the country and rural exceptionalism makes me want barf two times and die. get over yourself, honey. your grandpa got by just fine with a truck practically half the size in every metric
Correct, and he kept the thing running for fucking thirty years to boot.
I don't know what you think you're arguing with me about.
There are tractors being used today that are double the weight of anything commercially available 50 years ago, and having them allows more efficient farming practices. A gas powered tractor in the 1950s (which most were) might be less than 12 feet across, things have changed drastically since then. If there aren’t large pickups available for farm trucks, semis will need to be used to transport them.
factory farming is hella sustainable and not destructive at all and furthermore most pickups sold are used on small family farms
If your point of view was defensible, you wouldn’t need to mischaracterize every view that contradicts it. What is gained from transparently lying to yourself?
Have you ever driven on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere? You don't know what you are talking about.
There are uses for pick-up trucks, and without hyperbole, you would not be able to get produce at your local farmers market without them.
Not to mention that there are families who rely on hunting for food. Good luck carrying a fucking moose on top of your station wagon.
Yeah but my car is the modern version of a station wagon. As infrastructure decays and climate change creates more weather extremes, the problems facing that 1% which grows your food will expand. That's not advocating for wider truck usage, only showing that there's a perfectly reasonable argument for owning one.