Honestly? Fucking epic save by the guy behind the wheel. That could have been MUCH worse.

It’s not a stupid question, it's a great one. Answers given cover the basics, I think :)

Without a doubt some of the best sustained on-track racing since the 2014 Bahrain GP’s “Duel in the Desert”. This was even better though, at one point it was about 5 cars within 1 second all vying for a podium.

maybe you, a writer, can think of a better way to describe what you mean instead of “ban cars”

Personally I would have preferred “people before cars” but no one made me the marketing director of remaking America.

Words already mean things.  If you feel like you need to explain what you "mean" you aren't using the right words.

It doesn’t create the same emotional response, but “obviate cars” would be a better, more accurate, and less fraught name. You can’t ban cars when the alternatives (e.g. the NYC subway) are old, unsafe, and miserable.

Ban Cars doesn’t mean ban cars.

If your slogan is that bad at conveying your intended message, you should probably reconsider it.

Even "Less Cars" if "Reduce" has too many letters for a slogan or some such other half-baked reasoning.

I think it’s what happens when a concept is incubated in a place that’s so welcoming of the idea that the three-word slogan would seem to promote. The people that talk about it, that push for it, that develop it - they lose sight of how it would be taken in the wider world. They just don’t consider that ‘no cars’ or…

If your pithy two-word slogan requires a lengthy two-page essay to explain, it’s a bad slogan.

“Owning” a slogan that others use to mock and dismiss you is fun and even empowering, but it doesn’t bring anyone new to the table, if that’s the actual intent.

Why is it that movements like this pick short, inflammatory names to only end up spending so much of their time saying “There’s so much more nuance than our name suggests!” I swear, it’s like some people actually WANT to hand their opponents an excuse to casually dismiss them

Here’s a thought. If you don’t want people to believe you are advocating for an “absurdly reductive position,” then don’t make your slogan absurdly reductive.

Even if you want to post your argument all over Twitter with a 140 character limit, you can do better than “ban cars.”

There are still 60 million people living…

I’m always amazed at how tone deaf these types of slogans are (the ‘defund the police’ movement did the same thing). It’s almost like the people saying them would prefer to have an argument - or piss people off - than engage in substantive debate.

Yes to all that, but I still think that more careful slogans would work better. The average American is never going to see more than those two words (and they will be hammered in millions of times by reactionaries). It’s like how “Defund the Police” scared the s**t out of millions of Americans, when what we really…

Trying to co-opt your critics is an understandable, but in the end, it just means you’re accepting maximalist branding that will push away people who aren’t aware of the inside baseball that generated the slogan in the first place.

I don’t know anything about these people, but I would suspect that rocket scientists have enough confidence/self-worth to not be “pressured” into doing something they don’t want to do. This isn’t high school...

Huh.  Weird how the FIA changed the rules to make Mercedes less competitive last year and then bent the rules to ensure Hamilton didn’t win the championship.  But yeah, they’ll definitely bend the rules to favor Merc.