Earlier today – or, crap, now that I look at the time, yesterday – we ran a post about the design of the Rivian R3X. It was a rant, really, and while the post had plenty of interesting arguments and some very satisfyingly cathartic ranting, it also contained some actual insults and a tone that I should have realized is not in keeping with what we want the Autopian to be about. I hope you’ll let me apologize and explain how we wish to move forward.
The post was from our design expert Adrian Clarke, and I adore Adrian. He’s an absolute sweetheart and a very talented designer. He also has a sort of designer persona that is expressed in articles he writes for us, and I find it to be generally cutting and funny and insightful. And while this post absolutely had those elements, I think there were definitely places where the powerful currents of a cathartic rant pulled him too far, and as I was the one to edit this post, I should have perceived that and made appropriate changes.
Sadly, I didn’t. Sure, I added a few editor’s notes here and there, but I made the mistake of assuming my knowledge of an author’s tone and intent would carry through, as if by magic, to every reader, and that was certainly not the case. There were parts that were frankly insulting, and there’s no excuse for that. We’re not here to insult anyone. Ever.
We can have strong opinions, unpopular takes, but we can’t just attack people because we’re caught up in the callow pleasure of a rant. We’re not here to gatekeep; while we value expert opinions – and I definitely consider Adrian a qualified expert – we don’t ever want those experts to make others feel like their opinions aren’t welcome. We can disagree, absolutely, but we will never discount anyone’s right to voice how they feel about anything automotive.
We’re all here for one reason: we love cars. That love can take many, many forms, and one of those forms is definitely spirited, vigorous debate. But it should never even appear like there’s a lack of respect from our side to yours; you readers mean everything to us. You’ve been loyal, you’ve hung out with us at meetups, and you’ve even supported us by becoming members. We owe you our very best efforts, and only our very best. And this wasn’t that.
Everyone is welcome here at The Autopian, no matter how miserable I or any of our writers may feel your opinion on some car or whatever is. Or how miserable you feel my opinions are. It just doesn’t matter. If you’re at the Autopian, you will be treated with respect and dignity. Sure, there may be some teasing or joking or poking, but within boundaries.
And this time, those boundaries were crossed, and I don’t intend to see that repeated.
So please accept my apologies here; this is on me, I should have perceived the magnitude and intensity of the words we published and their full implications, and I didn’t. I’ll do my best to try and improve, to repaint those lines we won’t cross in a more vivid hue, so I don’t allow them to be stepped over again. I’ll likely make plenty more mistakes in the future, but I hope this will no longer be one of them.
I sincerely hope you’ll forgive my failings here, and I look forward to the chance to fuck up in bold, new, and more exciting ways in the future. All of us at the Autopian appreciate you so very much, and I deeply hope you’ll chose to continue to explore the grand, absurd, complex, and beautiful automotive world with us.
As repentance, I offer you a sketch of an alternate universe Fiat 500 where Italy achieved energy independence via the development of powerful pasto-anti-pasto reactor systems, which harnesses the incredible energy released when these two oppositely-charged foodstuffs react in a controlled environment:
Just to TL/DR this whole situation: When Jason and I started this site, we wrote a list of guidelines. One of them was titled “preservation of voice,” and it outlined key actions we can take to make sure we don’t contaminate that fragile something that special authors have.
We follow those guidelines (I know there are a few folks saying we should cool it on ed notes; we’ll do our best, though those notes are there for very strategic reasons); the guidelines are why you’ll see words like “colour” in pieces by Lewin and Thomas, they’re why you’ll have wacky asides that have nothing to do with cars from Stephen Walter Gossin, they’re why Huibert sometimes gets so nerdy it’s over the layperson’s head; they’re why Jason can sometimes use improper grammar (there’s + plural does drive me mad!) and we’ll let it run; they’re why we love Adrian hot takes that rip on the gorgeous E-Type Jag (an opinion that certainly not all of us agree with). Many other sites wouldn’t allow these, at least not to the degree that we do, but we know that voice is what sets us apart.
Still, while we pride ourselves with preservation of voice, here on this site we will not publish pieces that include:
I’ll quote a comment I made earlier to put a bow on this:
Thanks Jason. I didn’t find the rant to be offending, but maybe some did? I hope this doesn’t mean Uncle Goth can’t do his British humor anymore?
I hope he keeps it up as long as possible. Uncle Goth is important to us.
Long live Uncle Goth. Even if his mother was a hampster.
His rants will be answered in the order they are received.
Is it just me or does anyone else think of David Tennant from Good Omens when they read an Uncle Goth article?
https://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/42900000/David-Good-Omens-david-tennant-42986798-268-220.gif
I appreciate the update and the line you have to walk. Yet I also keep thinking that NASCAR could use some drivers like Adrian, who call it like they see it without concern for the thoughts of sponsors or officials or bosses or the audience. (No sarcasm should be read into that statement.)
I didn’t read Adrian’s article before it got nerfed, but some of the comments have snippets of what turned people off. I personally think “shit-witted wink tickler” is a spectacular insult, though it felt somewhat misplaced in the context of car design. Maybe Adrian has met the guy in person and has reasons to have that level of contempt for him.
See, I loved that, too, and I think some of that is just fine. There’s just a line we need to figure out how to tread. Again, this is on me, not Adrian.
I respect the tightrope you have to walk here. Keep up the good work.
Jason, I know you’re catching some flak for this, but this makes perfect sense in light of the piece some time back about Matt having to eat some humble pie when he thought he was punching up, but was actually going after someone with far less reach. This site feels like the plucky underdog, but its influence is growing. Stepping on others isn’t a good look for creating a community for everyone.
I enjoyed Adrian’s piece, as I usually do, but I can see how it might have involved some punching down, especially considering how forcefully he was arguing against a take that was all over the internet. I appreciate that this is a place that strives for responsible journalism and a strong community for everyone. Being very critical of a popular opinion has its place, but doing so too forcefully risks alienating people who may not have even been inclined to defend the position if they didn’t feel insulted for believing it.
I’m glad this site is run by responsible editors with a good mission. Thank you.
I found the original article to be insufferable and snotty and frankly poorly argued.
Is there any chance you like any other Uncle Goth writing? Insufferable, snotty, and sometimes poorly argued is why we like him.
No, I have not been impressed so far.
So why did you even read the article if you don’t like this writer? I’m kind of confused.
Bored at work, and it’s a car I’m interested in.
What a quandary.
On one side, I appreciate Adrian’s opinions, and his rants are instant clicks from me. I’m fairly certain I’ve read every single thing he’s written for the Autopian so far. I certainly don’t want his biting commentary to be neutered in any way.
The other side, I appreciate that this is a place that’s not too stubborn to take a step back and reflect on what was published. As you’ve experienced, that stubbornness sure can undermine the mission! So good on you for that.
In summary, I’m cool with entertainment + apology. What service!
I’d like to add that the “Beetle wistfully looking over a fog laden canyon” should be the top shot for all future apologies.
Yes!
Jeez Torch, that was just Adrian being Adrian. If you want to offer up an apology for an article,your resident “King of Bad Takes” wrote one last week about how any car with a timing belt is by definition unreliable…(I keeed, I keeed)
Wasn’t that David’s?
Regardless, though, there’s no need to get the street gang wars between the Belts and the Chains going again.
Yes, that was a David take. I was just taking the piss out of him a bit because of the uproar it started.
Sorry – just realized I misread the text and missed everything in “your resident ‘King of Bad Takes’” after the first “u”. But my point still stands, or still crouches behind a dumpster in an alley, or something.
Don’t leave out the gears!
No worries with the Gears – they’ve seen the lights.
You know what REALLY grinds my gears?
(Me. Sometimes I just suck. I admit it. I’ll own it. It’s me.)
I appreciate this mea culpa. While I always enjoy Adrian’s takes, and Adrian’s style of writing, I also know that what I like isn’t always what others like.
The automotive industry is designed to cater to everyone, so having an automotive community like The Autopian also cater to everyone makes sense. Not every article is of great interest to me, as not every type of vehicle is of great interest to me, but I am glad they are still written for others to enjoy, and nine times out of ten I still read them just so I know what I’m missing out on. I think this site has done a grand job of trying to share interests and topics among folks who normally would be disinterested, and I hope that continues as it builds the community up as a whole.
I certainly think there is room for hot takes like the one Adrian wrote, but I also think a bit more care in writing and editing can still deliver the spice without adding any offense – and if there was a writing team I have confidence in being able to do succeed in that effort, it is The Autopian’s writing team.
Keep up the good work, the good writing, and thank you for being responsive to your readership.
I thought the original piece was great, and Adrian’s work is one of the reasons why I love this site.
I’d much prefer you allow for a writer’s voice to come through naturally, perhaps with an editor’s note up front explaining what is about to follow…instead of some heavily edited, watered down version (not saying that’s the case here, I didn’t re-read the post).
we DEFINITELY have no intention of watering down any writer’s voice. This is going to be a bit of a dance, I know. I think we’re still figuring out what the boundaries are, but they will never block anyone’s voice.
Appreciate you, Torch!
The editor’s comments, frequently David’s in particular, do water down the writer’s voice.
Yeah, it’s a weird and unique part of The Autopian to see articles in this format:
(Premise 1)
(Premise 2)
(Premise 3)
[ed note, actually I disagree with these premises -DT]
[ed note, actually I AGREE with all these! – JT]
(Premise 4)
(Conclusion)
[ed note, well I guess it’s ok after all -DT]
[ed note, I told you so! – JT]
It’s humorous and endearing. Especially when Torch and David start an argument in their comments. But, yes, David’s habit of contradicting the writer does sometimes torpedo the article’s point.
I don’t much care for editor interjections. It demonstrates a sense of entitlement and places the editors’ opinion above that of the writers’. If the editors want to say something, there’s this part of the page called the comments section that we’ve come to use quite a lot.
Additionally, I thought this was a web page with interactive clicky bits and stuff. Why in 2024 are there editors notes inline with the text? Make a mouseover element. Create an expandable text element that the reader can choose to read or disregard. Set a page toggle to enable or disable the editor comments globally. This convention is a holdover from print and is entirely obsolete.
I find the way there are frequently mid paragraph interjections extremely disruptive to the flow of the writer’s work. I agree it demonstrates a sense of entitlement and respect for the writer’s work.
That’s not to say that there aren’t appropriate times for -ed remarks, like an introduction of a new contributor and their background or the impetus for a new regular feature.
It’s DT’s job and right to make sure the site doesn’t alienate readers or potential partners, and it’s a tricky line. Referencing the site’s mission and values is the right way to do it. Those exist as a stand-in for the founders, a decision-making framework to determine what is and isn’t OK. It’s the “what would Steve jobs do” guideline, and whether or not you agree with the outcome (I don’t entirely, fwiw) it’s the right approach here imo.
It certainly is DT’s right to do what he feels necessary but I feel that it should largely be left behind the scenes if he feels his employees aren’t inline with his vision of the site’s mission or he disagrees with something in the article.
Fair enough.
Torch, I respect that this is a complicated dance, and I agree with what you’re trying to do. But the way the last couple paragraphs got truncated left this piece without a succinct conclusion. It took a well-focused (but possibly offensive) take on the wrongness of a couple of popular opinions and turned it into…umm…a vague statement about how the car-buying public wants new-looking cars? The “stay in your lane” message got completely mangled to the point of unrecognizability.
I found this piece significantly less offensive than David’s piece about timing belts. David glossed over large gaps in his reasoning. In principle, I mostly agree with David’s sentiment but can’t get over the holes in his argument. In principle, I mostly disagreed with Adrian’s sentiment about the value of untrained opinions, but the original piece successfully pushed me closer to his position. It was good persuasive writing, a hot take that wasn’t as hot as I initially thought. Regardless of whether I agree with Adrian, he generally conveys good reasons for his judgements. And contrarian hot takes are definitely part of his voice!
I think it would have been better off to leave Adrian’s original article alone and simply add an editor’s paragraph explaining the exaggerated, contrarian, and sometimes even satirical nature of publishing a hot take. Previous Adrian articles have made frequent enough use of ridiculous name-calling that I don’t see these as directly attacking people. I see it as satire, and it doesn’t offend me since I understand the context. If the editors feel the name-calling *doesn’t* fall under the banner of satire, or that the context wouldn’t be clear enough to some readers, those names could be adjusted as seen fit. But in this case enough meat was removed to affect the coherency of the argument.
Thanks for the integrity, and thanks for taking the time to have this discussion. Directly including the audience is a really neat aspect of Autopia that keeps me coming back here.
Edit to add that Jason’s original ed. note did a good job of pointing out the “exaggerated for fun, so don’t take it too seriously!” nature of the piece. Kudos to Jason!
I got the nerfed version first and wondered why in the world it ended like it did. Glad I wasn’t the only one.
The difference between this and the timing belt piece (which I stand by) is that the timing belt piece contained:
Did I overcorrect this story (which, fundamentally, was awesome; Adrian is immensely talented)? In some ways, I probably did (“shit-witted winkle ticklers” is gold). But it had to be mended in order to keep this ship of ours pointed in the direction promised by our Mission Statement.
I understand that it’s controversial, and to regular readers it might not have seemed as egregious as it did to those less familiar with AC’s style. But I have no doubt that modifying the piece, and being 100% transparent, was the right call.
Ultimately it was an editing failure, not a writing one (this is not on AC), and as EIC I’ll take responsibility for it, as I will for any editorial breakdowns here.
Anyway, as Forrest Gump would say: That’s all I have to say about that (I have articles to write/edit!).
P.S. If you haven’t yet, read/watch Trade-In-Tuesdsay featuring the quirky Chevy Avalanche!
Thanks for the response. I appreciate it.
You’re spot-on with wanting to avoid those three issues. Since I read the piece from a satirical angle, I dismissed such as inflated hyperbole. If some readers took that seriously, I certainly understand how that is problematic.
Again, thanks to all of you guys for the high degree of transparency. It speaks volumes that you put in the time to respond to these comments. As said below, keep doing what you’re doing, we’ll be fine. 😀
P.S. – the Avalanche is neat. Does Galpin Premier sell that directly or does it get sent to some other lot/auction? Seems like an oddity for an Aston Martin/Jaguar/Land Rover lot.
I too often wonder if Galpin has a “sled lot” like the dealership I worked at had. Full of shit that is seemingly barely able to pass inspection or just sold as is to the customers with a pat on the back and a few good luck words. I freaking hated when people wanted to look at shit in that lot. It was embarrassing as hell
A large part of what I love about this site is the community, and the inclusiveness, and the openness for people to voice their opinions. It’s something that was sorely lacking at the old place, and that this site has gotten right.
That being said, I was not offended by Adrian‘s peace, I enjoyed it very much.
But I also appreciate the apology, I appreciate the attention to the comments, I appreciate the attention to the tone of the site and how much it means. Not only to all of us, but all of the writers as well.
Keep doing what you’re doing, we’ll be fine.
It took me reading a few of Adrian’s articles before I started to understand and appreciate his point of view, and I’ve really grown to enjoy his perspective and his style of writing. It’s also really fun to see his engagement with the commenters, both here and in the Discord. I took it as an opinion piece and treated it as such. I truly do appreciate the difficulty of the line you all have to walk here… It can’t be easy.
I’ve always heartily enjoyed Adrian’s rants and that article was no exception. Now I have to wonder if every byline I see from him is really his thoughts or a watered-down version.
I appreciate that this site is for everyone in theory, but in reality there’s always a choice and I’m comfortable saying the “silent majority” of people were not offended by Adrian’s post.
When measuring offense and deciding to take editorial action, the threshold shouldn’t be if the majority were offended or not.
First of all, that’s hard to measure as most people won’t say something. If they’re offended, they may feel like they don’t have grounds to complain or they may just leave – which is counter to creating an inclusive website with a good audience base.
Secondly, we’d get a way with a lot more (in a bad way) if the threshold was merely 50.1% of the population was not offended. Between the aforementioned hesitancy to speak up and the fact that offensive and the fact that the majority are often wrong, that can excuse a lot of inexcusable behavior.
Did Adrian mean to us that specific phrasing in a truly derogatory or pejorative way? I doubt it. But I can see how the offending words could be read as such – especially in the translation between a British writer and a predominately American audience.
I didn’t take a position on how the site should determine when to take editorial action. I was only pointing out my opinion that those that took offense would be a small minority (I disagree it’s anywhere close to 50.1% in this case) and that watering down his article was not without cost. Namely, I don’t feel this apology addressed the risk of muting Adrian’s voice. It’s not a simple (or arguably tractable in the general sense) problem.
Also, I can’t say I agree that the dynamic on the modern internet is one where the majority oppresses the minority. The loudest, most offended minority is often the winner in online spaces and we’re only just now starting to see people push back on that mindset at least in the US. By the same token, there must be some moderation because otherwise things descend into a cesspool. Unfortunately, the only thing that can be done is for the site to define its values. If you agree, stay, otherwise go.
Finally, I’d rather go for an “assume good faith” approach when reading articles on this site rather than speculating what someone might feel when they read it. You almost get there by mentioning British vs American humor – that’s the right way to look at it.
Honestly, I’m glad the Autopian is one of the few spaces on car-internet where these kind of discussions can be had in good faith among the staff and commentariat. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the offending remarks were all that bad. Harsh, but not necessarily out of line given Adrian’s understood tone. But clearly someone was offended and this is where the editorial staff have a chance to identify their values – both in terms of being inclusive but (and I think this is the bigger point) also transparent.
I’m mostly trying to make the point that the bellwethers we often rely on to determine if something was offensive or not (and this is something I am guilty of as well) can be flawed.
So….. This is kind of a heavy topic, because it seriously affects the kind of content we’ll see later, especially Adrian’s content. And that’s something that all of us here care about.
I did not mind the original article. It so perfectly and clearly expressed Adrian’s thoughts on the topic, and that kind of unfiltered expression is an important and good thing.
Reading the new, neutered, article is significantly less enjoyable(which is important, because that’s the real reason we read it) and significantly less cohesive, and less representative of Adrian’s writing style and personality.
The comments on the original article seem to make public sentiment fairly clear- there were only 2-3 comments complaining about the tone, and many more than that appreciating the tone.
In general, I like Adrian rants, I think all of us like Adrian rants. I am also in favor of publishing whatever you want, even really unhinged stuff, as long as it is clearly marked at the top as such. “This is the opinions of the author” and whatnot.
And anybody who enjoys Top Gear(I would imagine most people in this audience) can understand that this kind of thing can make excellent entertainment, and that not everything should be taken seriously. And that some people will take jokes more seriously than intended, and there’s only so much you can do about that.
We’re going to keep figuring out how to do all this right, and I know we won’t please everyone. When David and I started all of this, we decided to be as transparent as possible, so, I guess this is what that looks like?
Of course you can’t please everyone. all the time As long as you please me all the time, it’s fine.
If it’s as transparent as possible, it’s not going to look like anything at all.
Between that rant and the tone & content of some of the comments here lately … I was starting to wonder if I’d accidentally clicked over to what’s become of that other car site
I’d wager a guess there’s been some migratory activity from “the other site”. Thankfully it wasn’t a critique of the Cybertruck design. That would have brought the rest of them over and there would be no going back.
Calling people out in general in the OG article was ok. Calling individuals out in replies to their comments wasn’t (let’s call a spade a bloody shovel – insulting people). Just my NSHO.
I agree with your NSHO opinion. (But maybe try not to let it go to your head. 😉 )
Personally, I like this apology less than the “offending post”. Keep in mind freedom is a messy business and anytime you edit to “gatekeep” you end up building walls. I’d rather read a snarky rant now and then, over the oppressive stifling of any writing potentially non-PC. That can be an endless cliff today. In the end, the kind of person who would tune out over such a middling post will ultimately find something else to justify complaining and when do you stop catering to them?
You know, I don’t have clear answers. There will still be plenty of stuff that offends people in the future, I’m sure.
Life is messy. We get constant reminders to pay attention: this was just another such. Ears now perked, move forward.
We’re here
This is America. And we are known worldwide for our kindness and concern for the rest of the world.
As such, no apology is needed Torch. Adrian is a wanker from another land and does not know any better. /s
One has the right to say whatever one wants. Everyone else has the right to hold them accountable for saying it.
Anyone offended by that mild rant is quite the prissy little princess.
Guy known for occasional ranting writes a rant (he specifically says it’s a rant), and some pearl-clutching ensues.
The apology was quite weird and confused me.. although I really liked the rant, I thought it was funny.
I’m pretty sure I couldn’t be friends with anyone who was pretend-offended by it, and they sure as hell couldn’t be friends with me.
I can’t say that I approve of anyone being afforded respect and fundamental dignity, but it isn’t as if you haven’t warned me now.
Well, I’m sure there’s limits to everything. I mean, genuine assholes and bigots and whatever aren’t welcome. We’re just going to try our best.
Interesting and thoughtful. Respect to that. But made me want to read Adrian’s article RIGHT NOW 😀
You should, it’s great!
It was. Not so much on a design level, but I love that he speaks up against that “suddenly everyone’s a designer” social media trend, that I also find annoying. I guess your previous giving-a-shit-about-stuff-design-educated-self did too? 😉
Son of a bitch made me tear up, what even is this place
Classy and thoughtful and well written. <3
Is the pasto-antipasto reactor related to the perpetual movement machine consisting of strapping a piece of toast (buttered side up) to a cat and dropping said cat upside down, thus initiating an infinite rotation around the cat's spine as the toast and the cat’s feet counteract each other's need to land on the floor?
Now I’m picturing a wooden-spoon-brandishing Leonard Nimoy wading into the pasti/antipasti reactor core to save everyone because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
He probably also has a giant mustache in this version.
Will it also feature Nimoy singing about Bilbo Baggins?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC35cQKHwzg
Nearly dumped the site from my feed after that elitist, gatekeeping tripe.
Well-done on the apology and very cute Fiat.
That is one of the less elitist things Adrian has written. It’s kind of a designer thing, and it should kind of be expected if you want an opinion from actual professional car designers.
I dunno, the polestar barb was beyond the pale.
Jk but I do like those, and I don’t own a black turtleneck
That one hit hard lol, but it did convince me that I’ve been right all along and the P2 is a shitty version of how Saab would have made a modern EV! The vibes are just…right.
Ahh.. Fiat with a new direct energy weapon… or light sabre? Where do we pour in the liquid schwartz.
WOW! Liquid Schwartz!!! Buckle up, we’re gonna make spacetracks!
A Fiat of this type only takes “EVO”
*Extra Virgin Olive Oil*
Thanks for this. Everyone fucks up, but not everyone tries to make up for it. Especially not with new Italian speculative technology!
Humour is a fickle thing, especially when there’s a difference in cultural backgrounds – believe me, I live 10,000 from my own culture, trying to make jokes in my third language. I don’t even mind blank stares anymore, not getting punched is my main metric now 🙂
What have learned today? We’re not yet ready for Full Adrian. Maybe 0.7Adrian, but more than that, only through welding glasses.
Just wanted to say – this humble approach to recognizing the core Autopian value of : “celebrating the unifying quality of automobiles.” and then providing more context and editorial judgement on that hot-take R3X article is why this site is so great. And it is what finally convinced me to become a paid member, after lurking for a while for free.
That said : As a former owner of a lifted 4-door VW Rabbit, Adrian is completely wrong about the R3X…it does look like a modern take on a Mk1 Rabbit/ Mk2 Golf Country. It even has a heckblende rear light treatment! 😉
Uhh…… Every Rivian, and like 70% of electric cars, have a heckblende. Heckblende rear lights are already more 2020s than they ever were 80s.