this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
1174 points (100.0% liked)

196

16574 readers
2218 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What annoys me about this is that it implicitly says that if you have more money you deserve to be safer.

[–] Llamadramas@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I mean, more expensive cars have more safety features. You pay to be safer.

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Sometimes, we must face reality. Newly developed safety features are a selling point and people do pay more for safer cars. If law dictated (and enforced) that all cars must have the exact same safety features, there would be no financial incentive to develop better safety, or much less incentive at least. In reality, car safety features are one of the few examples of things actually trickling down: today's cheapest cars have safety features that at some point only existed in the most expensive luxury cars. This is fine.

None of this applies to whatever the fuck the original post is about though.

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Sometimes, we must face reality.

Why would I accept a reality that I think is fucked? No I am not gonna do that.

None of this applies to whatever the fuck the original post is about though.

Yeah but side tangents are fun.

[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why would I accept a reality that I think is fucked? No I am not gonna do that.

I claim that this particular aspect of reality is actually fine, definitely acceptable and possibly even good. As I said, new/better car safety features do reach the cheapest models within a number years, making it a net good. Of all the things car companies do wrong, such as privacy, I really don't think this is one of them.

As for directly answering you, "Why would I accept a reality that I think is fucked?" -- I think I'm misinterpreting you when I interpret that as you basically living outside of reality. That's an option, I don't think it's a good one.

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

When I say accept I mean any of the first 4 definitions from Merriam Webster excluding 3c.

Of all the things car companies do wrong, such as privacy, I really don’t think this is one of them.

My problem isn't with car companies it is with capitalism just to make it clear what I am against.

[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago

Alright then :)

Thanks for being my first non-toxic conversation on Lemmy :D