No, for once this is not about military matters. It is, however, about a theater of war called social media, where the loudest give the impression that there is only one truth left.
The only truth about electromobility
Nothing beats electromobility. The battery-powered electric car is the only solution to the world’s climate and mobility problems. And there, too, you have to be a member of the progress club. Because anyone who buys anything other than a Tesla hasn’t gotten the message yet. The classic combustion car manufacturers will disappear one by one. And while we’re at it: Elon Musk can walk on water.
That’s the impression you get when, like me, you’re forced to follow him on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. In fact, no doctor in the world can help me later if my state of mind suffers lasting damage from repeatedly reading oversimplified comments.
First of all, there is so-called hate speech, especially when it comes to arguments about technology openness. Anyone who allows himself the lapse of even “thinking” of hydrogen as an alternative is sure to receive the gloating of an entire Twitter bubble, primarily from the electromobility Taliban ranks.
As a rule, these are wealthy people who can afford a premium electric vehicle from the Californian manufacturer and, of course, have the option of charging their electric vehicle cheaply from their spacious home, thanks to a solar roof.
Unfortunately, there are also the Jane and John Doe drivers who have to make do with a dinky garage and have no opportunity to charge their hard-earned electric cars with laughable ranges either nearby or at work.
Electric mobility that can replace the combustion engine 1:1 must be affordable.
Switching back? Is that possible?
Then there are the (admittedly rare) people who switch back. Anyone who dares to publicly declare that they are switching from an electric vehicle back to a combustion engine is almost certain to face an escalation, or even a shitstorm. And it always follows the same pattern.
Trolls, misguided people and bots
The backslider explains his decision. For example, because he often has to pull a heavy trailer or caravan over long distances. Or because he is tired of hanging around for hours at loading parks because it is once again taking too long. That’s where the institutional pack of Snickers doesn’t help, either. If the person who begins the topic thread is lucky, the first commentator will still try to respond to his arguments.
Then the harsher commentators join in. The tone gets rougher, the first insults and ad hominem “arguments” start. The backslider is now fully on the defensive. He is told, sometimes quite directly, how stupid he is. Finally, the backslider withdraws. Once he has posted this on a special Facebook member board, the first requests for deletion come from the other members. And finally the troll or bot, because that’s all he seems to be, is deleted.
In the Middle Ages, such reactions were the norm. Then the locals marched with pitchforks against the renegades. However, it did not end with being deleted.
Especially when it comes to such important topics as mobility, emissions, technology and climate, verbal disarmament would be desirable. After all, we actually want to convince our “discussion opponents” that clever innovations can keep this planet habitable for everyone. To do this, however, we must ensure that other points of view are also accepted and, if necessary, understood. The world is not just black and white. There are also shades of gray in between.
And electromobility is still a long way from becoming mainstream.
But it is doubtful whether this can be discussed on social media.