Exactly. Unfortunately most americans are too "me me me" and apathetic to really understand the consequences of their rabid consumerism. And it seems you have to make a splash to get noticed these days.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Twenty SUVs Damaged in Texas Attack
- Thread starter eyelikeart
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. Unfortunately most americans are too "me me me" and apathetic to really understand the consequences of their rabid consumerism. And it seems you have to make a splash to get noticed these days.
abstract- i see your point. and as one of these anti-materialist, anti-corporate people, i get what you're saying.
the problem is, even *with* the violence these stories don't get much attention. there was essentially NO major media coverage (in the US i'm talking) about the protests at the summit in canada (forget which city) where people were gassed and such. likewise, very limited coverage of the protests in nyc... even IN the city itself.
also, take a look at peoples' responses here... "those people are idiots" "whackos" etc... people who don't want to see their destructive nature won't see it with or without violence, unfortunately...
this is why i think people need to start at home. if you know some relatives, friends, neighbors who have an suv, but don't really need it, talk to them about it. not in a condescending way, but let em know about their options. about the new hybrids (some which look the exact same as their gas counterparts). let them know about diesels. inform them of the safety problems with suvs. etc.
people are ignorant, and it's much much harder to reach people on a large scale with a passing news story than it is to talk to them directly.
it's amazing to see peoples' reaction to my brother's hybrid civic... "wow, i didn't know they had those". etc. people just don't know. and torching some suvs won't enlighten them, ya know?
the problem is, even *with* the violence these stories don't get much attention. there was essentially NO major media coverage (in the US i'm talking) about the protests at the summit in canada (forget which city) where people were gassed and such. likewise, very limited coverage of the protests in nyc... even IN the city itself.
also, take a look at peoples' responses here... "those people are idiots" "whackos" etc... people who don't want to see their destructive nature won't see it with or without violence, unfortunately...
this is why i think people need to start at home. if you know some relatives, friends, neighbors who have an suv, but don't really need it, talk to them about it. not in a condescending way, but let em know about their options. about the new hybrids (some which look the exact same as their gas counterparts). let them know about diesels. inform them of the safety problems with suvs. etc.
people are ignorant, and it's much much harder to reach people on a large scale with a passing news story than it is to talk to them directly.
it's amazing to see peoples' reaction to my brother's hybrid civic... "wow, i didn't know they had those". etc. people just don't know. and torching some suvs won't enlighten them, ya know?
Originally posted by Moxiemike
Exactly. Unfortunately most americans are too "me me me" and apathetic to really understand the consequences of their rabid consumerism. And it seems you have to make a splash to get noticed these days.
see, i don't see these "splashes" really getting noticed. and i certainly don't see them causing any substantial change.
it's great to cry revolution, but it's not as productive as getting out there and starting one, even in a small scale. and revolution means change. if you think these violent acts are causing change, i'd have to disagree.
Right. But it IS a chink in the armour, so to speak.
While we do need stories about the hybrid civics and whatnot... it seems like america like violent stories. Y aknow?
It's all part of the process. though i tend to disagree. In europe, you wouldn't need to vandalize SUVs. But then again, they're also sophisticated enough on the whole to not NEED them
so to speak, but not really
as though these huge corporations can't write off a couple hundred suvs? their margins are so damn high it's a joke.
and again, america likes violent stories yes. but can you point me to where they've seen these stories and actually been affected?
Vietnam.
Civil Rights Movement.
(Of course the people wanting civil rights were not the source of the violence, but seeing the police/white response on tv gave a lot of people a new perspective on the matter.)
heh, you made my response for me, no?
ultimately, was it the peaceful protest of MLK Jr, or the violence of the black panthers who helped attain some equality for blacks?
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
heh, you made my response for me, no?
ultimately, was it the peaceful protest of MLK Jr, or the violence of the black panthers who helped attain some equality for blacks?
I think it was both.
But the result was the same.... Civil rights being passed... but MLKjr... how did he die again? Violently. That might have made more of an impact overall....
Thats my argument too actually. I was just being argumentative. Violence causes harm to your goals, unless it is being done to you. What this suggests is that the public sympathies will go to the SUV dealerships and not the vandals.
Violence causes harm to your goals, unless it is being done to you. What this suggests is that the public sympathies will go to the SUV dealerships and not the vandals.
Maybe its unnecessary, but unless it makes the news somehow, the ignorant will remain ignorant because they don't hear it on the news, read about it, or have their friends tell them. People hear this and pass the news along, but they have to get it from somewhere. Unless the news is "intriguing", it really doesn't spread. Violence and destruction is intriguing, and even if some people don't agree with what happened, they become more aware of an issue that they may or may not have ever thought of, or were simply not aware it existed.
I'm guessing that you are only in favor of violence when it furthers your aims. Or do you feel that shooting abortion providers is a good thing? How about the killing of Mathew Sheppard? Or how about when the US uses force in ways you don't approve of? I'm guessing you aren't a war supporter, yet your logic seems to encourage war as an means to an end.
it was 'busting' not bustin'.....
And one of the issues at stake here is that the ELFs are zealots - and as everyone who spends any time on these forums knows, zealotry is not a strong position for any argument.
D
my point is that people still aren't getting it. violence or not. they aren't saying "hey, i really wonder why these people feel so strongly about suvs being bad..." they say "those ****ing whackos! hey, check this out, some liberal ****ups did some more vandalism!"
i guess there's the theory that no publicity is bad publicity, but i don't think that's the case
i think the WWJD (what would jesus drive?) and the arianna huffington supported/started tv ads were much more effective... the first appealed to christians (often conservative, often not "environmentally aware"), and the latter appealed to anyone who's bought into this terrorists are the root of all evil stuff...
who does the violence really appeal to? whose attention does it not only get, but hold?
I don't know why people get so worked up over SUV's. There are thousands upon thousands of 15 year old cars (or older) that get 10 miles to the gallon and pollute horribly. These should be the target of the environmentally extreme. But that wouldn't be very PC to go after the poorer population. So instead they go after richer people who's car gets twice the gas mileage of these older cars.
I started in a 1983 Dodge RAM pickup and I got 8 miles to the gallon. My next car is a 2000 Ford Explorer and I get 18 miles to the gallon. Would they rather that I stay in my Dodge pickup?
If it was a choice between my Dodge or any car, I would have kept my Dodge.
I started in a 1983 Dodge RAM pickup and I got 8 miles to the gallon. My next car is a 2000 Ford Explorer and I get 18 miles to the gallon. Would they rather that I stay in my Dodge pickup?
If it was a choice between my Dodge or any car, I would have kept my Dodge.
Yeah, but all the old cars will eventually die. The problem only gets better if we can slow the production of new low-mileage vehicles.
Originally posted by Moxiemike
Well, the people who buy these monstrosities are worse than the dealers IMHO. The dealers are selling what they know the public will scoop up like lemmings.
So if you're gonna do it to the dealers, do it to the idiots who buy these things.
Sure. Why not. I'm all for the people who sticker SUVs with bumper stickers that say "i'm helping the environment, ask me how?"
A normal family DOES NOT need one of these things toride back and forth from the café to their suburban McMansion....
So go get 'em!
congrats! that's the dumbest post i've seen in the forums in a LONG time!
if these morons wanted to attack something that is 'harming the environment' why not go after OLD cars that emit MUCH more damaging exhaust than new SUVs do. as a matter of fact, most SUVs are WELL below emissions standards guidelines - some are even cleaner than most new sedans.
and yeah, SUVs may get 13-20MPG, but who really gives a sh*t ? if you wiped out ALL the SUVs in the USA, the drop in demand of imported petrol would be insignificant at best.
Originally posted by Stelliform
I don't know why people get so worked up over SUV's. There are thousands upon thousands of 15 year old cars (or older) that get 10 miles to the gallon and pollute horribly. These should be the target of the environmentally extreme. But that wouldn't be very PC to go after the poorer population. So instead they go after richer people who's car gets twice the gas mileage of these older cars.
I started in a 1983 Dodge RAM pickup and I got 8 miles to the gallon. My next car is a 2000 Ford Explorer and I get 18 miles to the gallon. Would they rather that I stay in my Dodge pickup?
If it was a choice between my Dodge or any car, I would have kept my Dodge.
bingo.
haha. don't have any kids eh? don't plan on having any kids eh?
who cares as long as i can live comfortably now. whoo!!!
Yes.. but an old pinto will not kill me when the cell phone talking, white yuppie soccer mom runs a red light, t-bones me, and her bumper lines up with my skull.
Add to that the new trend of soccer moms taking speed to "get everything done that they need to get done in a day" and you have a nice triple threat.
Overheard two women talking about it the other day
Saw another woman get arrested for wrecking her BMW Urban Assault Vehicle into a telephone pole. i talked to the cops and they said she was all up on PCP. Brilliant. Give the rich more $$.
In this case, christ, vadalizing the SUVs might keep them off the road enough to prevent a casulaty or four.
Ah, but you see, the solution here is not with the SUVs, its with the people driving them. All those traits you just described can be done in any vehicle. In this case it just happens to be an SUV.
Get to the cause of the problem, just not one of its symptoms.....
D
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Ah, but you see, the solution here is not with the SUVs, its with the people driving them. All those traits you just described can be done in any vehicle. In this case it just happens to be an SUV.
Get to the cause of the problem, just not one of its symptoms.....
D
Well, there's a couple causes of the problem, MC.
First off, we have the irresponsibility of the dumbarses who drive them. We have the yuppie soccer moms, we have the guys who prance around in their SUVs who suffer from Napoleon complex, etc etc etc.
Now we also have the proven facts that these vehicles themselves are a) dangerous b) inefficient and c) make the driver more likely to engage in road rage, reckless driving, etc. "Tank syndrome" if you will.
So we have multiple problems that lead to a danger for the people who are driving around in energy efficient cars, smaller cars, etc etc. We have dangers to pedestrians. There's the story of a mom who ran over her kid because she was late for work and rushing out.
Think she would have seen the kid if she was driving a car that allowed for a better field of view in the back? Probably. What WAS she driving? An Escalade.
So there's the issue of responsibility... but there's also the underlying fact that these machines are dangerous, inefficient, and are a leading cause for more "reckless" driving.
I mean, if you FEEL safer in your Element, i'm sure you might be more inclined to pay less attention to the world around you? (not you per se, but you have one, so you're a good example. i'll use you in this case.)
SUVs, by their construction, tend to make the world more dangerous, just through the psychological implications they impose on the driver.
Ha, well, you've been in my element. Its not in the same league as the SUVs - its not really an SUV, its in its own class and much smaller.
But its also the car companies making these things, if you want to start throwing around blame. Make a minimum fuel efficiency rating for private vehicles.....set it at 20MPG - that would cull the field of many SUVs...
D
But its also the car companies making these things, if you want to start throwing around blame. Make a minimum fuel efficiency rating for private vehicles.....set it at 20MPG - that would cull the field of many SUVs...
D
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Ha, well, you've been in my element. Its not in the same league as the SUVs - its not really an SUV, its in its own class and much smaller.
But its also the car companies making these things, if you want to start throwing around blame. Make a minimum fuel efficiency rating for private vehicles.....set it at 20MPG - that would cull the field of many SUVs...
i tend to agree that of all suvs, the element is the best... in that it's fairly efficient, and has some nice features. it also actually has space (given the boxiness), rather than being rounded and sleek and thus losing the space which is just one of the excuses people use for "needing" one.
as for the 20 mpg rating, it's good in theory, but i don't see any current admin making said change... money... oil... etc
and the idea of an "average mpg" is a good idea on the surface, but unfortunately holds very little weight.
i can explain if need be. but i'm tired. hah
as for accidents and dumb drivers. yes, dumb drivers drive all sorts of cars. and i have a problem with sports cars because they tend to make the drivers feel too cool for school as well. not to mention efficiency. that said, if you get hit by a vw golf, vs getting hit by an asscalade... huge huge difference. regardless of how dumb the driver is