I brought the source of the article into question for a good...

  1. 37 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 39
    I brought the source of the article into question for a good reason. It was not to dispute any underlying facts on the towing capacity shortcomings surrounding the current generation of EVs. It was to highlight that such talking points are often amplified by sources with an agenda to undermine EVs altogether.

    An insightful article could have buried the lede and used the story as a springboard to objectively investigate what challenges are standing in the way of a solution, and how they might be addressed. Rather than a proposition in search of evidence, "Welp, looks like EVs have failed yet again! *womp womp*". That's the difference between providing meaningful actionable insight, and just flogging a dead battery.

    In my view, posting articles like the one you did serves to reinforce the perspective that you are arguing in bad faith, and draws attention to the quality of your research.

    "I just happily look at negatives, I don't shield anything out."

    I rather think that having a filter for rejecting low-tier information is an important skill. Separates the signal from the noise.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.