Even with that, the scariest part of the Borg originally was that they were just this undifferentiated swarm.
Criticism still needs to be based on something real in order for it to be valid.
And yet, in the end, yours only amounts to what you consider "likely".
Let's hold up on the self-congratulations a second.
There's a very long way between a multinational corporation's published policy and the practice at street-level, even if yesterday is the only report (so far). Is this a franchise? What authority does the store have contractually, or in practice? Is the policy enforced? Is there a history of enforcement? Was this a rogue employee, maybe a recent hire, with a political motivation?
Did you check the original thread https://x.com/AmmahStarr/status/1804608613916328334 for the context of the discussion? Did you check the account for a history of "rage-bait" before dismissing this woman's experience?
Skepticism is important, but caping for corps is seldom necessary. They pay people for that.
I hear you, too many are SUVs or "crossovers" (still "light trucks" for the purposes of scamming gov't regulations) as well.
But I'm pretty happy with my Leaf. 🤷
Somebody is really pushing an anti-EV narrative.
When I want smaller than my ⚡🚗🍃 Leaf, I ride my ⚡🏍️ Metacycle or my ⚡🛵 niu N-GT.
The Leaf is a reasonable size, the Ioniq 6 as well I think.
Intentional or not, it's an exaggeration. Only a sith deals in absolutes!
While the "without any advantage over them" is an exaggeration, the point is that SUVs are using a disproportionate amount of resources. A fraction of SUV drivers routinely use them for the unique situation you describe, or for any jobs that a car couldn't do. I don't begrudge anyone using the right tool for a job, though rental often would work for infrequent exceptional needs. But the OP is an important point about wastefulness, and focusing on minor semantics or individual use cases is a distraction.
You are attempting to refute data with an anecdote. The assertion isn't that no SUV is useful, it's that they are disproportionately wasteful for their level of popularity.
My point was more about the fact that voting in our FPTP system, mathematically, is an act not subject to the same "black & white" fallacy label as a discussion about who is the best candidate, because it actually is a choice between the top two candidates, which is why splitting the vote has been an enduring strategy.
But your illustration about the Fallacy fallacy—that is to say that even if something were a fallacy, that doesn't in itself mean it is untrue—is also a fair point.
How did you read that into what I wrote?
You know what I meant.
Feels like a pretense to discourage protests.