That explanation is fair enough but the headline is red meat the the EV disinformation brigade.
It’s funny how words affect people differently.
Not long ago, I posted a short, precisely-stated comment mentioning an observed fact that I had verified with a relevant authority. When I later checked in, I was surprised to find someone accusing me of spreading misinformation, and my comment removed by a moderator. It was clear that my accuser had badly misinterpreted my words. He refused to admit it or accept clarification. (And the mod had already acted, rashly.)
I re-checked what I had written about twenty times over the course of the day. There was nothing there to support the accusation. My best guess is that my phrasing or the subject matter might have touched on rough emotions from a bad experience, leading him to see what he expected to see instead of what I wrote, and triggering attack mode.
Communicating well really is complicated. It takes work on both sides, and can quickly turn into a bad time if it goes off the rails.
Because of this, I’ve been making an effort to read (and re-read) charitably, especially with people I don’t know well.
I tried to buy an EV for my parents a couple of weeks ago and the dealer had the EV misinformation playbook memorised and tried to convince us that EVs were a fad and that should get a hybrid until Hydrogen takes over.
I’ve decided that whenever I see these common myths, I’m not going to just let the misinformation go unquestioned.
In this case I think specifically focusing on EVs will generate more clicks for article writers, but it does also feed a common anti-EV narrative that they are somehow worse than ICE cars because of tire wear, which is not true.
I do see the other side that the tires being developed are specifically looking at EV owners, so this is a tough one to get the balance right on, but I do still think the headline is written to stir trouble and generate clicks.
One thing is certain, America needs to stop buying so many trucks!
That explanation is fair enough but the headline is red meat the the EV disinformation brigade.
It’s funny how words affect people differently.
Not long ago, I posted a short, precisely-stated comment mentioning an observed fact that I had verified with a relevant authority. When I later checked in, I was surprised to find someone accusing me of spreading misinformation, and my comment removed by a moderator. It was clear that my accuser had badly misinterpreted my words. He refused to admit it or accept clarification. (And the mod had already acted, rashly.)
I re-checked what I had written about twenty times over the course of the day. There was nothing there to support the accusation. My best guess is that my phrasing or the subject matter might have touched on rough emotions from a bad experience, leading him to see what he expected to see instead of what I wrote, and triggering attack mode.
Communicating well really is complicated. It takes work on both sides, and can quickly turn into a bad time if it goes off the rails.
Because of this, I’ve been making an effort to read (and re-read) charitably, especially with people I don’t know well.
That’s a terrible thing to say!
…Only joking.
I tried to buy an EV for my parents a couple of weeks ago and the dealer had the EV misinformation playbook memorised and tried to convince us that EVs were a fad and that should get a hybrid until Hydrogen takes over.
I’ve decided that whenever I see these common myths, I’m not going to just let the misinformation go unquestioned.
In this case I think specifically focusing on EVs will generate more clicks for article writers, but it does also feed a common anti-EV narrative that they are somehow worse than ICE cars because of tire wear, which is not true.
I do see the other side that the tires being developed are specifically looking at EV owners, so this is a tough one to get the balance right on, but I do still think the headline is written to stir trouble and generate clicks.
One thing is certain, America needs to stop buying so many trucks!