Alright, people, listen up.
I know the world seems more divided than ever these days (although as someone who minored in history, I can assure you this is nothing new). I know that as much as I’d like to keep the craziness of politics away from TTAC, it’s not possible — the automotive industry intersects with politics all the time, and it’s our job to cover those topics and stories. I know arguments on social media are getting nastier.
That doesn’t give you an excuse to come here and step out of bounds in the comments. Over the past few weeks, the editors have received multiple complaints about personal attacks, racist speech, and the like. We’ve addressed individual complaints already, but enough of you have reached out that I felt compelled to say something.
It’s not just that some of you have reached out – I’ve also seen the decline in civility in the comments with my own eyes.
It appears that either a bunch of folks are new here or have forgotten the rules. One of my predecessors laid out the rules for commenting, and before we delve further, I post them here to remind you. You can also find them by clicking the FAQ link at the top of any page on the site.
What’s TTAC’s commenting policy?
It is not what you say that matters but the manner in which you say it; there lies the secret of the ages.
– William Carlos Williams
Comments are an inseparable part of TTAC. TTAC has a reputation for high quality comments written by knowledgeable people. We appreciate all comments that improve this reputation. Quality will lapse without quality control. Therefore, the following commenting guidelines are in effect. If you do not agree with these guidelines, do not post comments on TTAC.
Posting comments on TTAC constitutes an acceptance of these guidelines.
There are two very simple guiding rules to commenting on TTAC
When commenting, picture yourself being invited to a dinner party with a roomful of strangers. You probably will not attack or insult the host, or the other guests. You will get annoyed by rude and uncivilized guests. You will understand that the host will not invite people back who violate simple rules of civility. Attacking the host could mean an end of the dinner before desserts are served.
You have a right to your opinion; you are immediately wrong if you are rude. Rude, uncivilized remarks mean an immediate loss of the argument. They also can mean a loss of commenting privileges.
However, should you feel the need for a more structured guideline, the following are TTAC’s Six Rules of Civility. Failing to adhere to these guidelines is grounds to be removed from current and future conversations:
- No personal/ad hominem attacks. One can communicate disagreement without attacking those with which they disagree.
- No racism, sexism, or bigotry.
- No spam/unwarranted self-promotion/advertising.
- No flaming/trolling.
- No political campaigning/hackery.
- And most important of all TTAC reserves the right to take away commenting privileges for any reason, even those not listed in the guidelines. We provide the comment section as a service. It is not a right. Treat it as a privilege that can be removed at any time.
When I came on board, I said these rules should remain in effect. That’s because they’re good ones.
Yet, lately, too many of you have been in violation. I’ve seen rules number 1 and 2 being violated especially frequently.
Our mods work hard, and we’ll catch as many violations as we can as quickly as we can. But you can meet us halfway by avoiding personal attacks, not trolling, and not saying things that are racist/homophobic/sexist/xenophobic/transphobic or otherwise bigoted.
“But what about my free speech?!” Rule 6 is clear – you have a right to say whatever you want but you don’t have a right to say it here. We’re under no obligation to put up with inappropriate speech in the comments.
Our comment section is supposed to be mutually beneficial. We benefit by reader engagement and the extra traffic it may bring in, and we also benefit by learning from you. You always hold us to account when we make factual errors or miss typos, or when we construct a poorly argued op-ed. Our writing and reasoning skills are often sharpened by your feedback.
You benefit by having a space to anonymously spout your opinions on any given article, whether you’re talking about political policy or the failings of a given OEM. The comment section is meant to be a friendly community for frequent readers of the site to gather and discuss the news of the day. Perhaps it may even lead to offline friendships.
This mutually beneficial relationship is not possible if the comment section devolves into a cesspool that drives away those who want to have reasonable, rational debate or discussion.
Looking at the bigger picture for a moment, I am not referring to the current debate over “civility” that’s roiling political media. I don’t care if you think it is or isn’t OK for Sarah Huckabee Sanders to be turned away from a restaurant. This call for civility extends only to TTAC-related spheres, including our comment section, our Twitter account, and our Facebook page.
We’ll never take issue with views that differ from our own (except for those that are racist/bigoted, et cetera), and our own staff is all over the political map. So feel free to express yourself. Just please do so in a civil manner, and please respect our mods when they do their jobs (at least one of you has been nasty to our mods, and that’s not acceptable).
TTAC’s comment section is part of what makes this place unique and special. Let’s keep it that way.
[Image: Fizkes/Shutterstock]
> “But what about my free speech?!”
Freedom of speech in the American, 1st Amendment sense, protects you against limitations posed government bodies. Even then, the freedom is not absolute. For instance, it does not protect obscenity, child pornography, or inciting violence.
Private individuals or groups are free to limit your speech however they see fit as long as they don’t violate any other laws in the process.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
The Freedom of Speech, in the American sense, embraced a broader scope than this narrow legal sense that is foisted upon us more and more recently.
TTAC’s policy above embodies the broader sense: somebody can say any fool thing they want, and this in general is acceptable within American society to hold quirky opinions, provided you maintain a civil tone and a sense of decorum.
The electrical union brother think the banker is part of a hegemonic capitalist system that keeps him down, but does he not still do an excellent job fixing up his house and they have a polite, friendly time of it? The vending machine operator who drives up with a McCain-Palin bumper sticker to a public school when he thinks that public employee unions should be abolished, does he not still do an excellent job to efficiently stock the school’s machines to their order? That was more of the “freedom of speech” tradition we knew; that people could disagree, and even hold weird opinions and beliefs, without it being necessary to declare somebody anathema or ostracize them from the group. America was never as friendly and politeness-focused as Canada, but I don’t recognize from my childhood this idea that we need to view this tradition narrowly.
If I had to guess, I’d say it’s the odd idea that’s crept in that says, if you hear somebody say something crazy, it no longer means just that person is crazy if you’re not doing something active to set him straight, but instead it’s a moral judgment on the audience. Sometimes people with crazy opinions say them, but, sometimes it’s better to let them talk (keeps them from getting more violent).
Thankfully, at the interpersonal level of society if not so consistently at the top, we’ve largely avoided this reading the 1st Amendment so narrowly as to start ostracizing and anathematizing for differences in religion – there aren’t that many religious tests in regular life, which is part of that larger idea of broad tolerance if there’s civility.
TTAC has printed this to address incivility in the commentariat, yet TTAC would be wise to do more to address an elephant in its own closet and on its own staff of contributors, to wit, Jack Baruth’s and Mark Baruth’s clear and unambiguous alt-right/Breitbart-esque saturated writings (less frequent now, and in JacK’s case, poorly written and reasoned contributions, for what they are; Mark Baruth’s writings never did have anywhere near the level substantive gravitas or stylistic flair that his brother’s written musings used to have).
There are no two contributors to TTAC who more often, intentionally, and deviously use the general genre of the automotive world to really dig deep into territory really having to do with their subjective, inflammatory and incredibly troll-bait opinions and proclamations about political conspiracy theories, better suited for Alex Jones Infowars or The Blaze, than master click-bait TTAC contributors, Jack Baruth (who used to actually write about vehicles and automotive-related matters, often really well ‘ sad!) and his brother, Mark Baruth (who even had an incredibly inflammatory and click-bait TTAC article (denigrating women) yanked post-publication by TTAC’s prior EIC, and which caused Mark Baruth to whimper and “quit” TTAC (if only temporarily) after not being able to man up to the response he received to that particular, ugly, distasteful, purposefully inflammatory piece of trash that he wrote.
+1000
Came here to say this
I’ve had an account here for well over a decade. Barely come here at all anymore because of those two clowns. When Mark had his hissy fit and Jack said something about him always being the smartest person in the room in the comment section, that was it for me. They’re just a couple of arrogant nutjobs with inflated egos.
I don’t really care if this comment gets me banned, but TTAC used to be great before it was the Baruth show and I think the editors should know that people feel this way.
I believe the key to maintaining civil discourse is aggressive moderating. That means you guys, Tim. I also read the comments at The New York Times and The Washington Post, and they’re markedly different in tone and content one from the other. The Times simply will not print mindless blather, insults, and other unworthy comments. The WaPo, on the other hand, is much less mindful, and the comment threads often devolve into idiocies of one form or another. My conclusion is that it’s up to TTAC to avoid needless provocations itself while also consistently enforcing its own rules of the road.
We have two mods, but we can’t respond immediately to each comment. Some comments end up in the moderation queue for various reasons — explained on the FAQ page — but again, it may take us a minute to get to them. I think you have a fair point — it’s on us AND you to make sure things are civil — but our commenting system isn’t perfect.
This site consistently has one of the best comment sections in the automotive world. Yes, it’s been going downhill over the past couple years but that’s the basic law of internet forums. Good that y’all are proactive in keeping it shipshape.
“No political campaigning/hackery.”
Deng Xiaoping betrayed the revolution and TTAC has stood idly by ever since.
They say this cat Deng is a bad mother – (Shut your mouth)
But I’m talkin’ ’bout Deng – (Then we can dig it)
List of post-war historical personages I would drink with:
Kim Jong Nam
Deng Xiaoping
Alberto Fujimori
Alfredo Stroessner
Jack Kennedy
Charles de Gaulle
Sir James Goldsmith
“That Dirty Frank is a bad mother…shut your mouth!/Hey, I’m Just talikin’ about Dirty Frank”
Someone clue me in. Who went too far.
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t you…
We’ll keep that in house, thanks. If it were you, you’d know.
Yes Tim.
I know one comment was totally out of line. Sad comment it was.
Serious suggestion, but why not dispense with some of the politized clickbait articles and post more car reviews. I attempted to find reviews about several cars I have been considering on here only to have my searches turn up reviews of the previous models and a steady stream of NAFTA SUCKS/RULES articles. Personally I’d like to see none of that and a return to the Farago days.
FWIW, politics aside. I find the updates to the trade/NAFTA helpful. This stuff will impact the auto world in a huge way.
I really like the coverage of Tesla, they make some truly incredible products but they are also very involved in their messaging and have some remarkable highs and lows.
CAFE and NAFTA affect what cars we get, and that is Auto News.
There will be more reviews coming — thanks to travel I got a bit behind on writing up some of my test cars.
That said, politics is important right now — Trump is proposing things that will affect this industry one way or another.
It’s not illegitimate by any means, Tim…the problem is that some folks just can’t discuss it without acting like they’re in third grade.
It’s a credit to this site that an attempt is made to regulate this kind of nonsense, and for the most part, I think it works. But as long as it’s OK for us to engage in what I call political bigotry, you’re definitely tacking into the wind.
I’d opine that the trade coverage / NAFTA stuff is legit for TTAC to include. I’m interested to hear it, at least how it might affect the auto industry specifically. Any rational human being has already come to the conclusion that our choices in the last presidential race were absolutely brutally bad on both sides of the aisle, so I don’t need any politics per se. But throwing political judgments out and just covering what US trade policy means to the auto biz, yeah, I’m interested.
Fair enough. I will give you that NAFTA coverage is indeed important and deserves some discussion. But when those articles outnumber reviews and discussion of specific cars then this has ceased to be an automotive forum and may as well become the comment section of “The Economist”.
I mean the stuff Bertel Schmitt posted was at least tacitly linked to the business.
Tim good to hear on the review side. I actually went with a car that was very well covered here anyway…The Fiesta ST…5 grand on the hood of a 20000 dollarish car is nothing to sneeze at. Fords, get em’ while you can lol.
What we need is more discussion of the chicken tax
Well fellow TTACers, I read all of the comments so
far and am completely unaffected by said
commentary. I only just recently regained my pass-
word protected access to my account here, I used
my newly gained freedom to offer advice to a certain
LandArk who having diagnostic dfficulties with his
Poncho powered Impala.(hope he gets it figured out)
That being said, extreme political views, far to the
edges only appeal to fellow believers. The Declaration
of Independence was written by holders of extreme
views that were tempered by the pragmatism of com-
primising with the other gentlemen in the same room,
trying to write the same document, agreeing to disagree
in order to deliver a coherent message to King George.
The US Constitution took a bit longer to frame AND it
had safeguards built in AND a way to modify or amend
it, unlike the Declaration. My ultimate point here is:
ultimately, all of these folk had to approach their
quandary by adopting a more centered philosophy
or we would still be taking tea every afternoon and
swearing eternal allegiance to the King &/or Queen
of England every day. To paraphrase everyones
favorite anarchist, Mr Orwell; Moderation good, Far
left or right, bad.
Then again, maybe as an Importer/Exporter I already have my finger on the pulse of this trade stuff. I will say I am considering dropping the iport side and focusing on the exporting in light of this!
“And you want to be my latex salesman?”
Perfect.
Art, as much as you would like to think there is much going on politically that will impact the global auto market.
It will affect what you drive.
Can I still use naughty words to talk about Nissan drivers?
Yes. Please remember to double down on Infiniti drivers.
I love nearly all Nissans. Hit me anytime.
TTAC has always been a hobbyist *and* industry website. The situation surrounding tariffs and fuel economy regs are major automotive stories so I don’t think TTAC should stop covering them just because some commenters can’t keep it in their pants.
If people need to indulge in the Drumpf/Hitlery circle jerk they can start a Twitter account.
That’s the problem…the “Drumpf/Hitlery circle jerk” is what passes for political discussion these days. It’s no wonder why we’re in the sad state we’re in.
Well that and people have no incentive to step in and stop a pair of jerks from ruining the discourse space by arguing past each other.
It kills constructive conversation about balancing things because most folks don’t want to get pulled into a toxic argument.
I pretty much skip over any comment that stoops to using catch phrase names like Drumpf, Hitlery or the Kenyan. If someone can’t manage to use a given name of a famous personage I can be pretty sure that they have nothing to say that is worth hearing.
Clutch,
The people who use derogatory terms to describe Obama really have issues they need to resolve.
I was in discussion here on TTAC the other day with a Trump supporter and he made poor judgement in how he viewed people from predominantly Muslim countries.
These are the types of people we don’t need. This has nothing to do with political correctness or free speech.
“Clutch,
The people who use derogatory terms to describe Obama really have issues they need to resolve.”
But do the “Drumpf” people get a pass?
I agree ClutchCarGo, those terms do nothing more than wholly discredit the point the person is making, I can’t help but assume the poster is a total child when I see that.
Still does not recognize the log in his own eye.
The people who describe Trump and his supporters as stupid really have issues they need to resolve.-fixed that for ya.
The issue is willful ignorance. Many people refuse to acknowledge that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are criminals of international repute, and that they’ve made deals guaranteeing American wealth to foreign nations and domestic factions.
The FBI top brass really are being dismantled for corruption. Tony Podesta and his lobbying firm really have disappeared, but not before Mueller forced them to file their FARA paperwork outing hundreds of foreign lobbyists and agents. President Trump really did sign an executive order blocking the assets of thousands of people. About 50 congressmen and congresswomen will not be seeking reelection due to public corruption scandals or sexual indiscretion. Hollywood really is embroiled in a sex cult scandal, and Allison Mack really is naming names.
When people pay attention, they inevitably realize that we are not engaged in a political struggle. We are engaged in a moral and existential struggle. Jeep Renegade costing more than Jeep Compass is utterly and totally irrelevant in the grand scheme. What matters is whether the US current account and lower middle class are being protected. Whether we participate in the Paris Accord or whether we stick to CAFE 2025 verbatim is irrelevant. What matters is that regulations establish a reasonable and fair framework that achieves certain objectives without corrupting the marketplace.
People need to see the big picture.
There is certainly willful ignorance as far the cries to dissolve ICE are concerned. Both of my senators want it abolished when a quick Google search shows that ICE infiltrates gangs, prosecutes cyber crimes, makes large drug seizures, *saves aliens who are abandoned by coyotes*, and has 30,000 employees. Last year they seized 7,000 lbs. of heroin and 2,300 lbs. of fentanyl, all while my senators were sounding the alarm over the opioid epidemic. Unbelievable.
Well, yeah, abolishing ICE is a stupid idea. If you polled most liberals (myself included), I bet you’d find that most of us think abolishing ICE is a monumentally stupid idea.
But it’s not the only monumentally stupid idea out there. You can include plenty of stuff that people calling them conservatives have come up with, like privatizing Social Security, or abolishing the IRS, or Texas secession, or abolishing the automatic citizenship portion of the 14th Amendment.
A stupid idea is a stupid idea. The mistake we all make is that when someone “on the other side” comes up with a stupid idea, everyone on that “side” has to believe it.
Therefore, you get nonsense like this:
-Because Trump has a history of bigotry, the people who support him must also be bigots (and, of course, there’s the “because bigots support Trump, he must be a bigot” nonsense).
-Because some liberal politicians think abolishing ICE is a good idea, when in reality it’ll just undermine the justice system, liberals believe in undermining the justice system.
And on and on.
With all this claptrap going on, it’s hard to hear yourself think.
@ FreedMike
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Not debatable. Furthermore, it pays the most lavish benefits to wealthy people who already enjoy other tax-subsidized retirement benefits, like 401K or IRA. Not debatable. Social Security is one of the last defined-benefit public pensions in the OECD (effectively). Most of the OECD abandoned defined benefit because it tends to pit the generations against one another in a competition for resources. This may be somewhat debatable, but in light of unfunded liabilities, I’m not sure a counterargument can be launched from the US position.
Australia privatizes half of their pension program. Are they monumentally stupid?
The 14th Amendment was created to give citizenship to slaves. Today it is a security threat. Foreign individuals can come to the US, have a child, acquire US citizenship for the child, and then take the child back home. At the age of majority, the child can emigrate back to the US and enjoy the privileges of US citizenship, while effectively holding an allegiances to a foreign nation and economic ties to a foreign nation. This is not in our interest, and very few arguments can be made in support. Few nations permit birthright citizenship, and they will go to extreme lengths to protect their security. They are not monumentally stupid.
The US is not a clever, open and just society. We are oblivious, idealistic and vulnerable.
I can’t recall any other industrialized country with unrestricted birth right citizenship other than Canada and the Canadians are turning away the few “refugees” that wanted to leave the US to go there.
I was just watching CNBC and they were taliking about tariffs, I had no idea that the U.S. exported maple syrup to Canada. You learn something new every day.
@TW
Its just one case away from a fix: If said citizenship were acquired by parents committing an unlawful act in providing it, then it can be revoked from it’s holder. Period. Oh you lied to authorities about your situation parents?
Conventional courts for citizens, military tribunal for unlawful aliens – try them as spies. This is not hard, its made to be difficult by the nation’s enemies both foreign and domestic.
Robespierre could have this sh!t fixed before intermission.
@ 28
Agreed. Citizen Robespierre would have the crisis solved by the end of his continental breakfast, and it would only cost a few hundred thousand lives. Hopefully, we can avoid a neo-Jacobin revolution, but I fear that’s where we are headed if we don’t make a few changes to the citizenship rules.
Better idea, versus instituting a 21st century Reign of Terror:
1) Build the wall and actually spend enough money on border security.
2) Focus on getting the folks who are here into the system. Get ’em legal.
3) And then, once we have the border properly secured, AND we have the 80-90% of former illegals into the system, THEN work on tossing the remaining lawbreakers out. With a smaller pool of them to deal with, and border security that ensures that they won’t be coming back, THEN we can “enforce the law.”
That, or we can just give up the idea that we’re a “free country.”
Take your pick.
@TW5:
Social Security benefits are only “lavish” to the higher earners in that the more you pay in, the more you get paid out, so, yes, those who earn more end up getting more. But then again, let’s say you have two workers – one who makes an upper middle class income, the other who’s worth nine figures. In the end, because of the SS earnings cap, the multi-millionaire’s social security check is going to likely be exactly the same as the upper middle class earner’s. Both will make more from SS than a guy who made a lower middle class income.
What that brings up, of course, is the idea of means testing – i.e., sorry, Mr. Multi-Millionaire, since you’re flush without your social security check, you don’t get a social security check – which I don’t agree with. Rich folks paid in too, and they have every right to get paid out.
How’s this for a two step idea:
1) Reform the system so that SS can’t be used for general government revenue.
2) Raise the income cap.
@TW5
I agree and I think its coming to that unfortunately. I hope to be elsewhere by then, I figure we have a decade or so.
@ FreedMike
You’re right. Social Security treats the household with 5 times median income the same as the household with 100 times median income. How does it work for the other 98%? Long story short, quite poorly.
Furthermore, public pensions are social insurance, hence they are funded through the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. You don’t have a right to collect social insurance just because you paid for it. Where’s my Medicaid, Welfare and Food Stamps?
If you look more closely, you’ll see no one in the US wants social insurance. The government was aware, but they wanted the political power of managing public pensions so they a created a real Frankenstein horror show that allows wealthy people to bankrupt poor people’s grandkids, while poor people’s grandparents can barely afford groceries on their benefits. It’s nuts, and it’s double nuts considering wealthier people already have tax subsidized private retirement with company matching and so forth.
1. Social Security lockbox is a Clintonian talking point. It would cause a currency crisis because the government would be hoarding cash.
2. If the income cap goes up, income taxes must come down to offset. Part of all of this public borrowing binge, besides the trade deficit, is also borrowing to offset the impact of payroll taxes. The threshold was $65,400 in 1998. It was $127,200 last year. Have wages doubled?!
TW5,
We don’t have privatised welfare for retirement. We do have a relatively generous government welfare package for retirees with little resources to maintain themselves.
As we can see in any country there are people who just can’t manage money, let alone secure a future in retirement.
Every worker must contribute 5% and employer 4.5% of earnings into recognised investment funds. This needs to increase to a total of 15%.
Australia also created its public health system in a great way. In the 70s Australia converted all social security to health. Then assessed indiviuals if they are self supporting. Those who where deemed “rich enough” do not receive welfare in retirement (this is scaled with a gradual decline in entitlements).
TW5: Thank you! (Once again)
I cant claim to read every article or all the comments for that matter. But I haven’t seen anything rise to the level of truly nasty comments/behavior. I will take this post as a mandate to be yourself to the extent that you could say it to someone’s face and not worry about getting punched in the nose in response.
I came here specifically to escape the political blather that permeates Jalopnik–sometimes even Curbside Classics!. I hope TTAC can remain a respite from that purgatory.
Has anyone here ever heard of a chicken tax?
Does this mean I can’t call Jack B. a stuck up snob anymore?
Having been here since Farago, many don’t know or have forgotten that RF would issue “cards” (similar to soccer) for bad behavior. I never got any further than a yellow card myself. When Bertel was here the ban hammer hit hard and often. I think it was applied unevenly and caused confusion more than anything else.
I like the rules (I think they were put forth by Paul Niedermeyer), they seem to foster an environment that should keep this thing running fairly smoothly. If everyone sticks to the rules.
I’ve recently seen some awful examples of blatant racism in comments on here lately by folks who I thought should be above that sort of thing. Also, some of the political bickering that occurs is just inane, but I have the luxury of just ignoring it. A word of advice (not just for this forum): Don’t feed the trolls…
I’m glad the mods are addressing it. This is still a good forum, those of us who participate should be mindful of what they post.
Do I see a lot of overt racial or ethnic bigotry? No. But I do see a very different form of it here: political bigotry. Instead of dropping ethnic slurs, or racial slurs, they drop political slurs. When did it become a no-good, bad thing to be a liberal, or a conservative?
It’s not just this site – it’s America. People are almost at each others’ throats over something that doesn’t merit it.
We all need to get over it – and I mean ALL of us.
“When did it become a no-good, bad thing to be a liberal, or a conservative?”
Shortly after the FCC revoked the Fairness Doctrine, leading to the ugly media world that we live in today. The advent of the internet would have lead to much the same thing, though.
You’re right, that had a lot to do with it, but it only explains so much. The media doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and it’s for-profit, so the bottom line is that they’re responding to consumer demand. If the discourse is rough, it’s because that’s the way their customers like it.
In the end, this is on each and every one of us. If we change, the media will change.
” When did it become a no-good, bad thing to be a liberal, or a conservative?”
when we decided to give “opinions” equal weight to “facts.”
oh, and the Boomers got old and decided America belonged to them and if they weren’t going to be able to keep it the way they wanted it, they were darn sure going to mess it up enough so later generations can’t have nice things.
“You’re right, that had a lot to do with it, but it only explains so much. The media doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and it’s for-profit, so the bottom line is that they’re responding to consumer demand. If the discourse is rough, it’s because that’s the way their customers like it.”
No doubt. “debate” has turned into “who can shout down the other side first” and “news” is delivered by demagogues who probably don’t even believe half of what they’re saying. But they enjoy the money they make by saying it.
The trajectory of daily revelations seems to indicate that liberal public figures are not liberals. They are traitors and criminals the likes of which this country has perhaps never known.
Obviously, a vast majority of the people who label themselves as liberals are not part of this corrupt enterprise, and they would never support it. However, they are also seemingly unaware of the corruption because much of the news media is part of it. Therefore, liberals are susceptible to all manner of fake news, and they are being encouraged to rationalize violence and bigotry against their fellow citizens to protect the political establishment. Thankfully, an overwhelming majority will never engage, but the turmoil is a distraction that also prevents them from seeing behind the scenes.
The same phenomenon exists within conservative ranks, but they have twice rebelled against the orthodoxy of their party in the post-war-era, first with Reagan and now with Trump. Liberals have not done the same. They push for increasingly extreme versions of their previous failures, without realizing their political orientation is being used to their detriment.
This isn’t about politics or civics. It’s existential. We don’t need to get over it. We need to understand how the game is played, and why people are playing it.
Excuse me, has anyone seen a car blog? I was here looking for a car blog, not really sure what happened.
@ Astigmatism
The staff does a great job of operating a car blog on 99% of their posts (not this one). I’m sure you will find the car blog somewhere around here, and you will find me talking about automobiles, even if I criticize some aspects of the sausage factory.
see what I mean about treating “opinion” as “fact?”
I respect TWS as being earnest and sincere, but does anyone really want to read this stuff at TTAC? I know I don’t.
I respect TW5 enough to suspect that this is neither earnest nor sincere.
@ Jeff Waingrow
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
The general framework of my post can be applied to the car industry as well. People are tribal about trucks. Patriotism for American trucks can blind people to the inherently unpatriotic business decisions that are made by executives who are supposedly serving customers that tend to be more Murican than the rest.
The Japanese work very hard to create a few models that score highly on American content studies. Toyota and Honda also export cars from the US. That’s great, but these accomplishments are also used to distract from the monstrous imbalance in US-Japanese auto trade and the protectionist nature of Japanese industry. The media often make a public invitation for non sequitur rationalizations supposing US exports and high content American models somehow mean the trade deficit isn’t real and it doesn’t matter.
We have perceptions and schema. We are susceptible to narratives planted in the media and funded by advertisers and lobbyists. For some reason, at this juncture in our history, these techniques are being used in an extreme capacity against the populace.
TW5,
I don’t know what neo nationalist group you are aligned to, but I do believe you misrepresent the truth. This leads me to believe you are insincere and have integrity issues. This does not bode well for whatever neo national group you work for.
Your comments, relating to industry, more importantly the motor industry are porous. If you care to do research you will find the actions of the current POTUS is counter productive in the creation of a stronger and viable US auto industry.
It has been proven protectionism, in particular tariffs and trade wars has a negative impact on all.
Here are some salient perspectives on the outcomes of Trump’s irresponsible use of presidential authority.
1. NATO. Countries will militarise at the exspense of US superiority. As more countries invest in military and withdraw from US influence and they create technologies they don’t share with the US, the US comes up shorter. If the US economy shrinks due to Trump’s action a greater chunk of GDP is needed to maintain US military at the expense of the American ctizen.
2. Multilateral trade. The US has expended massive resources creating a global trading environment which American multinationals (by far the largest representation) will lose along with foreign nations who will hold Trump’s actions against the US. One of two things will occur. US multinationals and foreign multinationals will move away from the US to maintain business. Governments will follow. The US will have second rate production.
3. As the events in 1 and 2 unfold the US economy will decline (along with others), except the US decline will not improve unlike the foreign countries abused by the US and alienated US business.
Trump is taking a huge gamble, which at best can put the US back on course in a decade or so or worse set the US back permanently, in which time the Chinese have strengthened their position.
The problem is that, with Trump it isn’t just he said / she said partisanship.
There are right and wrong answers here.
For instance, every competent MBA or economist could have foreseen the trade war countermoves and Harley Davidson’s response. Why? Because Trump & Co aren’t the first people to have tried these moves, and those of us who have taken the time to become educated on these topics know how it turned out before.
And that’s before we even get to the moral outrages and human rights violations. Those are mostly off topic for this forum, no matter how egregious they are.
While there are some political questions which which are a legitimate tossup and where your answer rightly varies bases on your wold view, there are a lot of political questions which have straight up right and wrong answers.
For instance, we can’t pretend trade wars are good for business just to be polite — that’s just not how the world works.
“While there are some political questions which vary based on your world view, there are a lot of questions which have straight up right and wrong answers.”
That’s the most depressing part. I can’t remember who I heard say it, but on a podcast I regularly listen to, one of their guests summed it up perfectly:
“You want to know why things are so ****ed up right now? Because we can’t even agree with each other on *what reality is.*
No one is asking you to pretend trade wars are good. However, if you can’t be critical of tariffs (or whatever) without resorting to personal attacks & other insufferable behavior then you should probably abstain from leaving a comment when that topic comes up on TTAC.
“For instance, we can’t pretend trade wars are good for business just to be polite — that’s just not how the world works.”
Long term or short term? And for good for whose business?
why don’t you explain it to us, then, since you appear to fancy yourself an Internet Economist?
Keep up the good work.
Tim, thank you for this. I come to places like TTAC to avoid politics. Sure, it’s not unavoidable, but I try to keep it civil.
Thank you.
Thank you
I say bring back BIGTRUCKSREVIEW@YOUTUBE!!!!!
I have read the rules and will do my best to comply. If I fail to comply, I understand that I will be 86’d.
I hope that this means there will be no trolling by insulting our President or his supporters by calling him//us stupid, something which I have not done to Hillary, Obama, or their supporters. I may H8 them, but I give them credit for not being “stupid”.
Waiting to hear from my archenemy. You know who you ar
As I said above, there are times when Trump and his supporters just don’t understand reality.
Would you have me give up on both you guys and America just to be “polite”?
Or would you like me to politely explain what I know that you (and Trump) clearly do not understand?
As someone who tries to be polite, but who also has a commitment to education and the truth, it’s a tricky judgement call.
For instance, nearly every economist and MBA on Earth foresaw the results of the trade wars Trump started. This is because Trump is not the first world leader to try this result, and those of is who have studied economic history know how it worked out — and why.
Should I avoid explaining how economics works to Trump supporters just to avoid ruffling a few feathers?
Settle it not in the comments section, but on the dance floor.
Two men enter, one man leaves.
It’s a walk-off!
Sub-600 and TW5, I think you’re doing a pretty good job of demonstrating exactly what we don’t need here. Save it for a political blog.
My remarks are not political. They are existential in nature. The survival of our nation and our independent way of life are at stake. That includes the auto industry. When you see it, you will stop trying to make everything political.
I couldn’t care less if someone prefers organic free trade to synthetic free trade agreement to regulated trade. If they are incapable of understanding the impact of the current account deficit, and if they don’t want to understand how it works, and, most importantly, if they don’t understand who really benefits, that is an existential threat, not a political threat.
These threats are everywhere, and because the automotive industry is capital intensive and labor intensive global oligopoly, many of these existential threats have a direct impact on the auto industry. Health insurance, close shop regulations, tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, fuel economy regulations, oil geopolitics, pollution regulations, etc. Many of these topics are in existential crisis and they are all related to the auto industry.
Trump is not a political figure. He has never held a consistent political stance on anything, nor has he consistently endorsed any party. However, he has said for decades that if “things ever got bad enough” (public corruption was rampant) he would run for president to address the existential threats to our nation.
When you figure that out, your problems are over.
TW5: very well put.
I would like to add that so many other nations are also breathing a sigh of relief that we see a glimmer of hope coming from the nation that has been the beacon of freedom before.
Name those countries please.
he can’t, and won’t, because it’s all in his imagination.
Sir I may be mistaken and if I am I apologize, but I believe you were demonstrating what is not needed quite a bit as well in the previous article.
Fair and well written. Thanks!
How about posting a few examples of inappropriate comments? Because I haven’t seen the type of comments you seem to suggest people post here.
I once worked for a retail company that YOU ARE ALL familiar with. It came to light one day that an employee had told a dirty joke, and someone who had heard it was offended. They complained, and management informed everyone that even at lunchtime, in the break room- the circumstances where it had happened- obscene words were grounds for dismissal. They nearly went berserk and fired me when I asked them to post a LIST of prohibited words. LOL
I recall a participant using something like “parisjinan” as an id, whose comments were amongst the highest quality here, whose participation seemed to decrease as the signal to noise ratio deteriorated, and whose comments I miss.
There is a sentiment too common in ttac discussions that to be interested in cars, one must have conservative or even redneck views. Unfortunately such views are sometimes reflected in the articles.
People with such views tend to be territorial, tribal and rude. As someone interested in cars and who does not align with their outlook, I have often been disinvited from participation, by them. At least a couple of these people have commented on this subject, as they seem compelled to comment on everything.
They are not ttac owners or moderators. Ttac moderators or owners have never informed me of dissatisfaction with my comments. I should not have to put up with the bad manners of these individuals, and I strongly suspect many contributions from people whose participation would enrich these discussions, are effectively blocked by the self-appointed gatekeepers. Of course there is no way to determine the scope of this damage. But the fact virtually no women participate is strong evidence.
So, I suggest that any baseless charge of trolling, or self-appointed attempt to moderate non-violations of the guidelines, result in immediate and permanent banishment.
However, it is also possible those with a financial interest in ttac are content with ttac’s leanings despite the cost in terms of limiting participation and therefore ad revenue. It’s their site, not mine.
I’ve been avoiding the site due to the excess of politics in the comments.
I still comment in the fun topics, but I do avoid the overtly political ones. As with most things, dispatching half a dozen chronic offenders to the cornfield would take care of 95% of the invective.
Same here: I used to spend an unhealthy amount of time here, but as the average comments got nastier and there didn’t seem to be any interest in moderation, I had a mild rage quit, but it wasn’t four or five months later I was already lurking here again. Even in the piles of manure, there’s a few gems of legitimate discussion. Here’s hoping the moderation is more vigilant so I can re-bookmark TTAC.
The comments section has been trashy for months now. This is nothing new. If you ever feel like doing something about it, maybe things will change.. but just talking about it is useless.
Even reading these comments the Dunning Kruger effect
runs rampant.
But thanks for trying!
So now people will still insult each other…just in a more polite manner, as per the rules.
Well fellow TTACers, I read all of the comments so
far and am completely unaffected by said
commentary. I only just recently regained my pass-
word protected access to my account here, I used
my newly gained freedom to offer advice to a certain
LandArk who having diagnostic dfficulties with his
Poncho powered Impala.(hope he gets it figured out)
That being said, extreme political views, far to the
edges only appeal to fellow believers. The Declaration
of Independence was written by holders of extreme
views that were tempered by the pragmatism of com-
primising with the other gentlemen in the same room,
trying to write the same document, agreeing to disagree
in order to deliver a coherent message to King George.
The US Constitution took a bit longer to frame AND it
had safeguards built in AND a way to modify or amend
it, unlike the Declaration. My ultimate point here is:
ultimately, all of these folk had to approach their
quandary by adopting a more centered philosophy
or we would still be taking tea every afternoon and
swearing eternal allegiance to the King &/or Queen
of England every day. To paraphrase everyones
favorite anarchist, Mr Orwell; Moderation good, Far
left or right, bad.
This is just the “Crime of The Century!!!!” Repeated on a semi-annual basis by whichever management lackey drew the short straw. There are few good writers on here; big hint one works for the slick paged magazines. Overall this site seem to drawer older, very white, probably overweight men who only see naked women when 100$ bills are involved. My interest went way down when one of the commenters said that “Snopes” was liberal media site. I see long time commenters gone or commenting very infrequently while a new commenter called President Obama “The Kenyan” and and any clickbait NAFTA/Free Trade/Trump article burrows in like a ground penetrating bomg into Dumpf/Hitlery comments. Do better or run ads on Fox news. The choice is yours.
You nailed it. When I had to stop squinting to see anti-Semitic comments and it became naked with a few posters I reached my, “time to walk away,” threshold. I was told about this story and dropped in; I couldn’t even get through the comments. Wake me up when it’s over.
“There are few good writers on here; Obig hint one works for the slick paged magazines.*
You may think he’s “good,” but he’s fallen down some bizarre rabbit hole, and whether admits it or not, his written musings could be literally mistaken for the verbatim rants of one Sean Hannity.
All I’m seeing here is further bashing of people who dont share your opinions. Typical of “those people” to continue to attack after being asked, politely, not to.
You prob don’t know the things I know.
It’s cool.
If you did, you’d realize Jack can be a huge jacka$$ on the sly, and despite my criticism of him, I still have a soft spot for him and will not deny that he’s written some great stuff when he was on his game.
I’m not sure I’ve ever had a meaningful, civil, argument.
*Still waiting to hear from my Arch-enemy…*
Of course, he may be having a ‘travel day’…
Well, you tried. I can’t even finish reading the comments to this blog entry.
Your choices are a liberal application of the ban hammer, increase moderation of the comments and ask for a few more volunteer moderators, or accept that the quality of comments here has fallen deep into the toilet. A hey guys, keep it on topic, of value, and play nice, didn’t work.
The comments above are close to 50% political cesspool and irrelevant to TTAC, the auto industry, and the article written.
There will always be some dead weight in any discussion and we have not afraid to cut it off to keep it healthy and beneficial for all mankind.
Comments at the Hollywood Reporter website make TTAC look quite good by comparison. Nearly all HR commenters (or perhaps there are only a few who each post hundreds of comments every week) will twist every story into how it’s all the fault of “the libs.” HR either employs no moderators, or has ones who agree with all that.
Too late, in any case, to return to a time when “letters to the editor” (i.e., physical letters selected by an editor, perhaps edited in consultation with the writer, and running a few days or a week after the story that prompted them) was the only option for readers; the result was that thoughtful comments were the only kind that readers would see. I know that several online publications have gotten rid of comments completely, and it’s easy to see why. (I myself was letters editor for a while, 25+ years ago, at a Big 10 campus daily.)
I do believe the mindset and paradigms on show here at TTAC is all about how to best manage a phase of US history we are entering.
Irrespective of what occurs regarding US actions the end result will be the same.
A new world with less US influence.
The way in which this adjustment is managed will also determine how far the US slides.
There are the Trump Nationalist we fear all and only can accept total US dominance at any cost. This group I find unsavoury as many are racists and bigots.
They spin fear as a tool to unsettle others and when that fails they disrupt as we have witnessed in the comments at TTAC.
The US in a transitional phase (like all in the West). It is not alone with the challenges it confronts. But blaming all, including your friends and Allies for your current situation is quite bazaar.
The US didn’t make the world, it has profited hansomely from it and has had positive influence in the past.
Don’t destroy the good work of our past for derranged, selfish and false ideals.
I disagree BAFO, it’s still morning in America, sorry to disappoint you. However, I’m glad to see you used “irrespective” and not “irregardless”, which would have triggered me, as the kids say, lol.
For what it’s worth – I gave up reading the comments a while ago. But I’m seeing the same attitudes creep into the main articles. There’s a fine line between blunt and snarky & being biased and inappropriate… and I find myself clicking in less and less (when this was once my favorite coffee break).
Comment posted today. Testing the commitment of the moderators to enforcing the guidelines?
JohnTaurus
July 3rd, 2018 at 12:06 pm
“Yep, everyone who feels any emotional connection to a car is just a Neanderthal.
Talk about virtue signalling, if you made one post without an “I’m better than all of you” attitude, I believe the world would fall off its axis.”
Free speech to me, does not mean that I am entitled to fill every comment with dirty and vulgar words in an inane and noisome commentary.
I do not like to see or read scurrilous or vacuous comments that or uses foul words, especially when they are about others commenters or a reply to one.
I quit reading YouTube comments because most of them see how many times they use the “F” word or are right down foul and nasty to some other commenter.
Sometimes, all you see is repeated “F” words.. …and they think that is an intelligent comment!
Because they are incapable of making an intelligent or an astute comment or answer to one’s posted comments.
And those that adds insight and knowledgeable comments on the subject, get buried in the filth that pervades the whole page.
Google could care less…..unless you use an ad blocker.
I have reached the point that I am not reading comments much any more, anywhere.
Unless that website monitors their comments for their language, etc.
Free speech to me, does not mean that I am entitled to fill every comment with dirty and vulgar words in an inane and noisome commentary.
I do not like to see or read scurrilous or vacuous comments that or uses foul words, especially when they are about others commenters or a reply to one.
I quit reading YouTube comments because most of them see how many times they use the “F” word or are right down foul and nasty to some other commenter.
Sometimes, all you see is repeated “F” words.. …and they think that is an intelligent comment!
Because they are incapable of making an intelligent or an astute comment or answer to one’s posted comments.
And those that adds insight and knowledgeable comments on the subject, get buried in the filth that pervades the whole page.
Google could care less…..unless you use an ad blocker.
I have reached the point that I am not reading comments much any more, anywhere.
Unless that website monitors their comments for their language, etc.
I left the site a couple of years ago because of all the nonsense mentioned in this thread, today was the first time back just to see what was going on
*sigh*… Same people beating the same dead horses
I do not like to see or read scurrilous or vacuous comments that or uses foul words, especially when they are about others commenters or a reply to one.
I quit reading YouTube comments because most of them see how many times they use the “F” word or are right down foul and nasty to some other commenter.
Sometimes, all you see is repeated “F” words.. …and they think that is an intelligent comment!