Who said you weren't quackers Just kidding, everyone here seems pretty chill, and on the topic of obnoxious fanboys, yeah they exist in any type of car community (Japanese cars, American truckers, FWD VTEC gang, etc.) Going after them as if they are the only representation of their community is bonkers though, American car-lovers aren't all redneck truckers, Japanese car-lovers aren't all creepy weebs, European car-lovers aren't all turtle-neck gentlemen from the Victorian ages.
I have to say that probably the most obnoxious fanbase I've seen in the car community is combined Honda, Mazda Miata, and anything BMW - in other words, the Latter Day Church of Track Day Bro. Imagine a bunch of people who: -Consider the Honda Civic to be the gold standard of compact cars, and look down on any that don't have the same technology -Are capable of feeling emotions other than contempt for the Citroen 2CV -Think Top Gear's brain droppings on automotive coolness are gospel truth -Hold "fashionably center-leftist" positions on every hot-button issue -Enjoy My Little Pony And you have the most obnoxious "car enthusiasts" on the planet. Of course that may just be due to urban sophisticates being obnoxious anyway.
I don't see Chuck as the mullet wearing, cousin fucking, muscle car loving type. More the infowars bumper sticker, big government is out to get you, listens to Alex Jones for more than just the memes type. (no offense Chuck, except maybe a little)
You're actually pretty close, the problem being I don't see that as a bad thing. Honestly, I see Thanos as of Infinity War as a distilled essence of government - a small-minded, shortsighted idiot who thinks he's a god, trying to ride in on a white horse and solve massively complicated problems with a snap of his fingers, and to blazes with who gets plowed under in the process. The only difference is that, because the infinity stones don't exist in real life, the government and its enablers have to use "nudges" and onerous nanny laws instead of just dusting half the total human population at once (some technocrats would knock off a lot more than half, if they could get away with it).
Some skepticism of government and it's decisions is a good thing, living in fear of government is not a good thing. Complaining about the "the government" on a video game forum isn't going to change the minds of any of your local politicians.
You got me there. Complaining about the government anywhere isn't going to change the minds of any politicians because if they cared what the little people thought we wouldn't be in this trashfire in the first place.
That's a dumb and overgeneralizing statement and I'll leave it at that since this thread isn't for politics.
This is car discussion my guys. Also, let people like their cars, whether they are a Prius owner, a Tesla owner, or drive a donk, they like their car just as much as you like yours.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1972-De-To...064693?hash=item5928691535:g:cdUAAOSwbRRcyhuW Found this on ebay, I am speechless. Can't even begin to imagine what must've happened to that car, let alone how anyone could find a single usable part on that poor car. Lot's of awesome Porsches in the background though. Spoiler: Screenshot of ebay post
https://news.gallup.com/poll/2167/energy.aspx 60% of the US' little people support "proposals to dramatically reduce the use of fossil fuels such as gas, oil and coal in the U.S. within the next 10 or 20 years, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Your point?
First, I would like to start by saying that I have learned over the past few years to strongly distrust "random" polls. The companies that conduct them are always biased. Second, the old specter of manufactured opinion is always waiting to show its ugly face too. A lot of people don't really think much about this stuff, so unless they are activists one way or the other they are highly likely to just repeat whatever they vaguely remember being told - without thinking about the implications. You ask people if we should reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and people will say yes even if they shouldn't. If you ask them if they would accept a drastic increase in their tax bill and a drastic decrease in their quality of life in order to accomplish this, you're going to get far fewer positive responses, with many of the remaining positives being either super leftists trying not to confront their own hypocrisy, or people who think that won't happen anyway because we're right on the cusp of some magical innovation that will make the transition painless for everyone except "those evil oil barons" or some other acceptable target. People say they want more fuel-efficient cars too, but in the mean time big chonky SUVs continue to sell in absurd quantities. When push comes to shove, the practical consideration of having enough space and pulling power to handle your people/stuff carrying needs outweighs the philosophical consideration of reducing our oil dependence by an amount that won't matter much anyway. Another example comes from Bob Lutz's book, Car Guys vs. Bean Counters. GM had done some market research and decided that Buick should build cars for old people. Then someone decided that since old people enjoy comfort and might not be at their best physically or mentally, wouldn't it be cool if they could control their cars entirely with voice commands? So they did more market research and showed focus groups of elderly drivers a simplified demonstration video where the driver simply issued a command and the car delivered without a hiccup. Of course, 75% of those surveyed said they wanted it, and so work began. Two years later, the prototype was an unmitigated dumpster fire which was utterly bletcherous to use and was several orders of magnitude more distracting than plain old buttons. Anyone who knew the first thing about how computers work would have seen that coming and killed the idea before it even got to the focus group stage, but the suitbots within GM had a positive reaction to their demonstration and so they were going ahead! Lutz, of course, killed the project, to the great relief of everyone who wasn't emotionally invested in it. The bottom line is, people want reduced oil dependence, but not all the ickiness that goes along with it. Even someone who genuinely believes the climate sky is falling will probably get cold feet if you ask them to pay significantly more tax while giving up most of their ability to travel and a lot of their access to modern conveniences too. Look at what happens on this or any other forum when I ask someone to prove their car enthusiast status by not walking or biking on mountain passes. The same thing's going to happen when you ask someone to regress their standard of living for the good of the planet. People may be for all sorts of things in the abstract, but if you take it down to the granular, day-by-day-existence level, a different picture will probably emerge. Unfortunately, by the time people come to grips with the bill of goods they were sold, it's usually too late, because that's where the "not listening to the people" part starts. The politicians know that most people don't have time to be outraged, and those that do will eventually burn themselves out, hopefully before the next election. Eventually, people get used to the negative consequences of whatever they thought they wanted and it becomes the new normal. Besides, by the time the next election comes, they'll either be the only candidate with name recognition, or the lesser of two evils against an even more destructive opponent, so they'll get plenty of votes anyway. Even if people do stay motivated for long enough to throw them out of office, the thing is already done, and to undo it against the wishes of the government/media/education behemoth would require a literal miracle; it has happened before, but not often and usually not at the national level. Even then, the idea has still been normalized, so it will likely encounter less resistance when tried again later. That's what I mean when I say the politicians never really listen to us; no matter how angry people get, the best that ever seems to happen is an endless and wearying two-forward-one-back dance with death wherein people are bamboozled into giving away large chunks of their freedom in exchange for massively overstated benefits, then maybe get some of said freedom back temporarily if the powers that be think a concession is necessary to keep a lid on things.
Drove a brand spankin' new 2019 Ram 2500 Bighorn diesel. Had 5 miles when I got into it, fresh off the transport truck and still all wrapped up with plastic.
No, then he risks endangering a bicyclist. Like the one I saw last night, riding a curvy, narrow-laned, mostly-shoulderless, spottily-lit road at literally 2:03AM local time. Without any lights other than the reflectors a bike comes with. Good grief, and people wonder why I go on these rants. Why even bother driving anymore?
Not this time. I did manage to activate stability control in that Ram while driving down the interstate. --- Post updated --- I actually quite enjoy taking midnight lightless-bike rides on curvy, narrow, shoulderless, spottily lit roads. It's nice to bike on a cool night when there's no traffic out. I listen for cars and get out of their way though.
Man, and here I thought you were cool. At least you try to get out of the way (not sure what that means, but still), but at this point I can't trust any of these passive-aggressive moral bullies not to have an iPod stuffed in their ears when they do this. Myself, I'd sooner shoot myself in the crotch and pour drain cleaner on the wound than ride one of those evil things anywhere there might be people around.
At least when I get in the way it's accidental, not a deliberate choice to hold everyone up and prison shank car culture with a woefully inadequate and freakishly annoying "vehicle" that by design is very hard to see (especially at night) and can't even do the posted on most roads. In other words: it's not my fault you can't take an actually decent line through most corners, and if I have my choice it never will be.
