> And both take an aesthetic preference and characterize it as something sinister and dangerous for society. Even taking this at face value, nothing about the

> And both take an aesthetic preference and characterize it as something sinister and dangerous for society. Even taking this at face value, nothing about these pickups being an aesthetic choice negates their impact on their surroundings. If anything, the ever-expanding grills are primarily aesthetically driven and increase a truck's danger to pedestrians. Preferences being aesthetic don't preclude them from critique, and aesthetic preferences don't occur in a vacuum. > As @some_random observes, it’s entirely fair to ask whether there is a real danger here, or whether the article reflects the “cultural distaste” of the author. The Bloomberg article I cited is another example in the same genre. If your counterargument requires questioning motive of the author rather than the substance of the piece then I think you've already lost.