It looks like your post might encourage brigading. That's why it got removed.
Both unintentional encouraging of brigading and having the appearance of trying to encouraging brigading are reasons to remove a post. Brigading and intentional encouraging of brigading is a bannable offense. Harassment of any user, from this sub or elsewhere, is also a bannable offense.
Speaking of analogies, I recently realized that we are basically living in a world where car culture is as broken as gun culture is in the US. Every ordinary citizen is allowed to own one of these death machines with next to no restrictions, and then "accidents" are brushed off as some kind of necessity to make society function, despite that every study will tell you that removing as many as possible of these things improves everyone's lives.
Charlie Kirk on this subject (I am assuming it's a shared opinion among gun-toting americans)
Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero.
[...]
You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.
No wait, you are misinterpreting him. He meant that he was totally ok with others suffering the consequences, not himself of course. Right wing, remember?
Also the fact that he often setup strawman to downplay the subject presented to him just to make a point is totally disingenuous. How tf are you comparing guns with cars in the first place?
The fact that people can't see through this BS on first glance then nod thinking "yeah he makes total sense" is beyond me.
I mean…if you’re in this sub, I feel like there’s a good chance you’d agree that it’s actually not a bad comparison? Just in a completely different way as Charlie Kirk lol
Kirk believes both are necessary for society to function and should be a right. r/fuckcars generally believes both are NOT necessary and that society should not be built around the presumption that both are necessary
Yes, obviously cars and guns have very different utilities and fatality rates and cannot be compared directly. That's why I said "not a bad comparison" rather than "a perfect comparison." I hope you realize not all analogies has to be exact and perfect to demonstrate a point.
(I also didn't downvote your comment FYI; that's someone else.)
Attempting to compare two different subjects to make a point on one of their severity is never a good point as it attempts to overlook nuances that differ the subject at hands. For instance, the intention to kill, the accident rate, etc. are very, very different. Nuances matter in these topics, as they reflect objective facts based on how we should approach the problem at hands.
In short, it's like trying to compare broccoli with orange, which both are very different subject in nature. You can only compare X and Y to make a point when they are similar in nature of workings, i.e. apple and orange with their respective time to mature for harvesting, taste, quality, etc., or the fatality rates of the vehicle models on the road such as SUV and van, etc.
Any attempts to compare different subjects with different nature of working is an attempt to twist the topic into a series of whataboutism and lead the discussion to no end as it based on different elements at play. No matter what political leaning you preferred, a bad comparison is still a bad comparison. False equivalent comparison should and always be avoided at all cost to prevent the ambiguous nature of such discussion being exploited by con-men to misguide/misinform people.
I get that you don’t want to overlook nuance in these discussions. That’s fair, truly, and I do agree nuance is far too lacking in most discussions nowadays.
But what you’re advocating for is very extreme; you’re basically saying we should never make analogies ever. Analogies, by definition, compare two things/ideas/concepts that are different, and there will always be details and nuances as to why the two things are actually different and, by your standards, would invalidate said analogy completely. I don’t think I can agree with that.
You’re welcome to point out why you believe a specific analogy is out of hand, which you’ve already done (fairly) for cars vs guns. (And I happen to disagree with you on that, which I think is okay to do too.) But to invalidate all analogies seems too far.
I'm not disregarding all form of analogy. As aforementioned, analogies can only make a point when they are made to compare two different subjects that is similar working in nature, hence my point on the example of why broccoli vs oranges is invalid, and why apple vs oranges is valid to make a point as analogy in my previous reply.
I'll give another example that's more straightforward: advocating an increment on minimum wage. By comparison we can point out the correlated economical datas such as inflation data, corporation revenues, etc. to strengthen such claim. You won't try to strengthen it under the notion of something unrelated like global warming, as it's going to feel odd as it's very obvious that those two subjects are very different and unrelated, but again you can force your way through to make a point as all things. Car vs gun is similar to such ambiguous comparison in short.
The crux of the matter as I aforementioned is such ambiguity often can be exploited by con-men to twist into a series of whataboutism to their advantage, which Charlie masterfully did so. If Charlie was questioned with something related like "X country have lower gun incident rates than Y country due to stricter gun laws" instead, he would have a harder time to make a rebuttal as the comparison is more direct, and intact with the nature of subjects, which given much lesser space for whataboutism due to the nature of unambiguity.
edit2: Nice edit, we gave you multiple chances, you kept saying the same "no u", you refused to listen, and you still don't grasp where you're wrong. What a way to prove you deserve to be blocked and removed from everyone's sight.
Yeah, that is one factor in me not being sure about it.
I suppose some things to consider are that the death toll being higher for cars is because there are more cars; and those cars are being utilised frequently with no deaths (That is, the vast majority of car journeys result in no immediate harm).
And when a car causes death or injury it is always contrary to or outside its purpose, but guns are very much designed to harm in lots of cases.
On the other hand, guns don’t pump out quite as much pollutants as cars do whenever they’re used.
And if you asked me which I’d rather be hit by, a bullet or a car, that’s not an easy decision to make.
I honestly see them in a very similar light. Cars don't actually have much utility in large cities because traffic builds up and you sit in traffic jams.
Truly the only difference is who gets the blame. With guns, the blame always falls on the shooter and never on the fact that he had ample access to a violent weapon. With cars, it's always treated like the car's fault (if not the pedestrian's outright), as if the car autonomously decided to hit someone (always "Car hits someone" and never "Driver hits someone"). Now guns misfire and cars can have catastrophic breakdowns but neither of those are the typical cause of death.
The reason why it's a great analogy it's because it's common knowledge that people like it when it's about cars vs. bikes. People are however offended by the thought that they could possibly have a drop of misogyny in them, or have their values tainted by any other systemic oppression. It's the same reason why racism isn't a good word, because people don't know what it actually means and only know they're against it. Anything challenging their perspective is difficult to confront.
Exactly. Misogyny, or bigotry of any form, involves a ton of unconscious choices/judgements we make and how we run society. But most people when they hear the term misogyny/racism/etc. think of a person consciousnesly deciding to hurl slurs, not all the unconscious judgements that result in discrimination or "sneakier" (i.e. less readily visible) and insidious forms of it like redlining (in the case of racism).
So as you said, people get offended and shutdown if you bring up their misogyny, because they can't comprehend it's a lot go subtle decisions society goads them into making, rather than solely a conscious choice to be a dick. Of course there are many intentional misogynsts, just like there's many intentional bike haters, but a lot of misogyny is indirect/unconscious just like how anyone using a car contributes to their city being anti-human and anti-environment whether they intend to or not.
You're essentially describing what the author details in the book "White Fragility".
What upholds most of the societal "-isms" aren't the extreme folks. But it is the extreme folks that everyone points at when something bad happens because they are the easy point of blame that essentially nobody feels needs to be protected/supported.
The book Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez has a chapter talking about the gender disparity in the roadways especially during winter. It’s an interesting read and it shows how the patriarchy really affects every aspect of life including the car-centric infrastructure.
The gist is women do a lot of unpaid labor so their commutes are not just going from home to work. There’s a lot of caregiving women do more than men and that means traveling to various points like daycare pickup or groceries or helping their aging parents. Whereas a lot of men just worry about getting from home to work and back.
There was this interesting case about women being disproportionately affected by falls during the winter in snowy areas bc the cities prioritize clearing snow for the daily commute but not for the general tasks/chores women tend to do. So they end up on icy sidewalks waiting for buses that can’t get close to the curb bc it’s covered in snow and they suffer more falls. But when a city prioritizes clearing snow off sidewalks/bus lanes then women have less falls.
The book also emphasized the need for a robust public transportation system that isn’t just geared toward getting people into and out of the city for work. A good public transit system should involve being able to get around more places in the city and not just a funnel to the downtown.
And if we improve public transportation then women’s lives on average will become easier.
It was a very good read and eye opening to how women globally are expected to take on various amounts of unpaid labor. I like that it wasn’t focused just on the US but talked about women’s issues across cultures and continents.
Based on how I've heard drivers complain and rage when they "almost hit a pedestrian" who had the gall to use a cross-walk at an inopportune time - it really maps a little too well onto how some men complain about how women dress who don't want to get hit (on).
First question when a cyclist or a woman gets hurt is always "what were they wearing?" Women always blamed for drawing too much attention to themselves and cyclists always blamed for not drawing attention to themselves. No wonder women are so underrepresented as cyclists in the US--they have no chance.
Unironically the “American” solution for both would be to wear a medieval suit of armor, rather than any attempt to acknowledge the social issues that might be at the root of these problems.
I'd say it still works by showing it doesn't have to be that way and adjusting is better for everyone. It's similarly much more comfortable being a woman in public in the Netherlands (I did grad school there it's so nice) vs much of the US.
Not a terrible analogy. Some places are designed by drivers with only cars in mind and refused to change, and some places have added protected bike lanes and such. There's things that can be done to improve the welfare of those not considered in the initial design, but it's done against the loud complaints of drivers who treat it like a penalty to them personally.
you know I did find that when I started cycling everywhere I suddenly understood a lot more about racism and sexism and homophobia, etc.
as a cis white guy, having masses of people feeling free to threaten me, or lecture me, or openly fantasize about murdering me was a very new and illuminating experience!
I’m starting to firmly believe that there’s a strong correlation between car culture and brain damage. The most brain-damaged (literally) people, are either classic car enthusiasts and SUV drivers who continually demand the price of fuel to decrease. Add about 25-30 years of Fox News viewing and you have modern America.
Eh? Vehicular cycling is a vital part of controlling traffic and preventing overtaking when it is unsafe. If you want to die, ride unseen in the gutter.
The term has a very specific meaning though, it's usually employs "taking the lane", or a method of cycling where you emphasise your position in the road to claim space, and redirect traffic around you as if you were a full vehicle. We would probably need a new term for what you describe.
They are describing current day vehicular cycling advocates while you're describing the only useful thing to come out of vehicular cycling in the past. The core component of vehicular cycling is that bikes should be treated as cars and smooshed into car infrastructure (sometimes literally), which is a horrible idea unless the only other option is that cycling is impossible. It does recommend the best way to ride on a road, but the advocacy wing of it is saying that bikes don't need their own lanes and should just ride in traffic.
Modern cycling advocacy says bikes should be treated as bikes and given a share of the public space in which they can safely be bikes. It views any time a bike needs to mix with significant car traffic as an infrastructure failure, thus knowing how to ride with traffic is a skill that no one should ever need.
Thanks for this, I'm very much on the edges of cycling discourse and was always wondering why people seemed mad at vehicular cycling when my understanding of it was 'take the lane'.
I think the linked video above goes into more depths if you're interested. I haven't seen that one myself, but have seen other stuff covering the same topic. It is an interesting bit of history.
Vehicular cycling is actually the presumed standard in many countries when there is no bike lane. Which incidentally mirrors, how women are often told to be more confident to gain the same benefits as men, but then projecting that confidence is getting read as misandry.
That also works, but my point refers to the extremists in these groups, cyclists who believe vehicular cycling is superior to proper cycling infrastructure and “feminists” who believe women are superior rather than equal to men. Horseshoe theory and everything
Muh misandry!!! You consider pointing out the shit too many men do as “misandry.” You use that word as if it’s any way comparable to misogyny 😂😂😂 grow up
So, statistically speaking, they really aren't. Men are far more likely to cause crashes than women. But also, that's not remotely the point of the post.
The part I have an issue with is "The roads are build for cars". They're not. If they'd said "Drivers (men) think the roads were built for them, but they weren't..." that would be a far better analogy.
To facilitate change it helps to see them as different things.
“The world is already built for humans, so why change it?”
Vs.
“The world in fact has a narrow idea of “human” and needs to take into consideration those outside that narrow view. Let’s try to make a world for everyone.”
That doesn’t “facilitate change” because just like how it is with cars, the infrastructure is built for men because men have been in control since the dawn of humanity. How is saying that bad?
Sorry I think we are talking at cross purposes. Or I haven’t made myself clear.
I, personally, am not saying that the world is built for humans. I am saying that that is the argument put forward by others. In fact I also think the world is historically built for and by men and that that is one of the main problems we face.
So I don’t think saying it is bad. It’s good. It’s what I say and think.
But it wasn’t clear from what I wrote above. Apologies.
I think the world needs to be built for everyone. Which it currently is not.
![[ Removed by moderator ]](https://i.redd.it/983k7upp4g6g1.png){kind=link}
It looks like your post might encourage brigading. That's why it got removed.
Both unintentional encouraging of brigading and having the appearance of trying to encouraging brigading are reasons to remove a post. Brigading and intentional encouraging of brigading is a bannable offense. Harassment of any user, from this sub or elsewhere, is also a bannable offense.
Have a nice day
Speaking of analogies, I recently realized that we are basically living in a world where car culture is as broken as gun culture is in the US. Every ordinary citizen is allowed to own one of these death machines with next to no restrictions, and then "accidents" are brushed off as some kind of necessity to make society function, despite that every study will tell you that removing as many as possible of these things improves everyone's lives.
Charlie Kirk on this subject (I am assuming it's a shared opinion among gun-toting americans)
[...]
Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/
This is exactly why there is not a single reason to feel bad for his death, even if you liked him somehow. He was just practicing what he preached
No wait, you are misinterpreting him. He meant that he was totally ok with others suffering the consequences, not himself of course. Right wing, remember?
And nobody can really prevent being one of the victims. Both can kill you while you sit in your house.
Also the fact that he often setup strawman to downplay the subject presented to him just to make a point is totally disingenuous. How tf are you comparing guns with cars in the first place?
The fact that people can't see through this BS on first glance then nod thinking "yeah he makes total sense" is beyond me.
I mean…if you’re in this sub, I feel like there’s a good chance you’d agree that it’s actually not a bad comparison? Just in a completely different way as Charlie Kirk lol
Kirk believes both are necessary for society to function and should be a right. r/fuckcars generally believes both are NOT necessary and that society should not be built around the presumption that both are necessary
You can read what you've written out again, slowly this time, figure out the parts that involved false equivalent comparison logical fallacy.
If you can't figure it out then nobody can help you.
Yes, obviously cars and guns have very different utilities and fatality rates and cannot be compared directly. That's why I said "not a bad comparison" rather than "a perfect comparison." I hope you realize not all analogies has to be exact and perfect to demonstrate a point.
(I also didn't downvote your comment FYI; that's someone else.)
Attempting to compare two different subjects to make a point on one of their severity is never a good point as it attempts to overlook nuances that differ the subject at hands. For instance, the intention to kill, the accident rate, etc. are very, very different. Nuances matter in these topics, as they reflect objective facts based on how we should approach the problem at hands.
In short, it's like trying to compare broccoli with orange, which both are very different subject in nature. You can only compare X and Y to make a point when they are similar in nature of workings, i.e. apple and orange with their respective time to mature for harvesting, taste, quality, etc., or the fatality rates of the vehicle models on the road such as SUV and van, etc.
Any attempts to compare different subjects with different nature of working is an attempt to twist the topic into a series of whataboutism and lead the discussion to no end as it based on different elements at play. No matter what political leaning you preferred, a bad comparison is still a bad comparison. False equivalent comparison should and always be avoided at all cost to prevent the ambiguous nature of such discussion being exploited by con-men to misguide/misinform people.
I get that you don’t want to overlook nuance in these discussions. That’s fair, truly, and I do agree nuance is far too lacking in most discussions nowadays.
But what you’re advocating for is very extreme; you’re basically saying we should never make analogies ever. Analogies, by definition, compare two things/ideas/concepts that are different, and there will always be details and nuances as to why the two things are actually different and, by your standards, would invalidate said analogy completely. I don’t think I can agree with that.
You’re welcome to point out why you believe a specific analogy is out of hand, which you’ve already done (fairly) for cars vs guns. (And I happen to disagree with you on that, which I think is okay to do too.) But to invalidate all analogies seems too far.
I'm not disregarding all form of analogy. As aforementioned, analogies can only make a point when they are made to compare two different subjects that is similar working in nature, hence my point on the example of why broccoli vs oranges is invalid, and why apple vs oranges is valid to make a point as analogy in my previous reply.
I'll give another example that's more straightforward: advocating an increment on minimum wage. By comparison we can point out the correlated economical datas such as inflation data, corporation revenues, etc. to strengthen such claim. You won't try to strengthen it under the notion of something unrelated like global warming, as it's going to feel odd as it's very obvious that those two subjects are very different and unrelated, but again you can force your way through to make a point as all things. Car vs gun is similar to such ambiguous comparison in short.
The crux of the matter as I aforementioned is such ambiguity often can be exploited by con-men to twist into a series of whataboutism to their advantage, which Charlie masterfully did so. If Charlie was questioned with something related like "X country have lower gun incident rates than Y country due to stricter gun laws" instead, he would have a harder time to make a rebuttal as the comparison is more direct, and intact with the nature of subjects, which given much lesser space for whataboutism due to the nature of unambiguity.
You're using a lot of terms you don't really understand the definitions of.
Look up the definition of an analogy and work your way backwards.
Refer to this reply I made then you might understand why I said it's a bad comparison
Edit: Classic Redditor behaviour of dropping a snarky reply then immediately block the person lmao. News flash, analogy can still be fallacious.
/r/selfawarewolves
edit: reddit care, really? F-in pathetic.
edit2: Nice edit, we gave you multiple chances, you kept saying the same "no u", you refused to listen, and you still don't grasp where you're wrong. What a way to prove you deserve to be blocked and removed from everyone's sight.
I want someone to challenge this because it is so neat, but I still won’t be saying it at the dinner table at Christmas.
But it is like with cars the dial for “utility” is turned up, and the dial for “lethality”/“harm”is turned down slightly*in comparison to guns.
I’m not sure about the second dial.
I'm not sure what you mean by
But the death toll by cars is several times higher than by guns in normal countries (not US).
Yeah, that is one factor in me not being sure about it.
I suppose some things to consider are that the death toll being higher for cars is because there are more cars; and those cars are being utilised frequently with no deaths (That is, the vast majority of car journeys result in no immediate harm). And when a car causes death or injury it is always contrary to or outside its purpose, but guns are very much designed to harm in lots of cases.
On the other hand, guns don’t pump out quite as much pollutants as cars do whenever they’re used. And if you asked me which I’d rather be hit by, a bullet or a car, that’s not an easy decision to make.
guns dont waste nearly as much land area.
or need nearly as much expensive infrastructure.
they dont cost anywhere close to the same in terms of percentage of household income.
hmm cars may actually be worse than guns.
Yeah, all good points. The more I hear about them…
The death toll in the US is similar for car crashes as for guns, but the death Paul for cars is much much higher than the death hole from car crashes.
I honestly see them in a very similar light. Cars don't actually have much utility in large cities because traffic builds up and you sit in traffic jams.
Truly the only difference is who gets the blame. With guns, the blame always falls on the shooter and never on the fact that he had ample access to a violent weapon. With cars, it's always treated like the car's fault (if not the pedestrian's outright), as if the car autonomously decided to hit someone (always "Car hits someone" and never "Driver hits someone"). Now guns misfire and cars can have catastrophic breakdowns but neither of those are the typical cause of death.
This is just a description of systemic oppression.
The reason why it's a great analogy it's because it's common knowledge that people like it when it's about cars vs. bikes. People are however offended by the thought that they could possibly have a drop of misogyny in them, or have their values tainted by any other systemic oppression. It's the same reason why racism isn't a good word, because people don't know what it actually means and only know they're against it. Anything challenging their perspective is difficult to confront.
Exactly. Misogyny, or bigotry of any form, involves a ton of unconscious choices/judgements we make and how we run society. But most people when they hear the term misogyny/racism/etc. think of a person consciousnesly deciding to hurl slurs, not all the unconscious judgements that result in discrimination or "sneakier" (i.e. less readily visible) and insidious forms of it like redlining (in the case of racism).
So as you said, people get offended and shutdown if you bring up their misogyny, because they can't comprehend it's a lot go subtle decisions society goads them into making, rather than solely a conscious choice to be a dick. Of course there are many intentional misogynsts, just like there's many intentional bike haters, but a lot of misogyny is indirect/unconscious just like how anyone using a car contributes to their city being anti-human and anti-environment whether they intend to or not.
You're essentially describing what the author details in the book "White Fragility".
What upholds most of the societal "-isms" aren't the extreme folks. But it is the extreme folks that everyone points at when something bad happens because they are the easy point of blame that essentially nobody feels needs to be protected/supported.
That's what makes it hard to solve things.
Which is a thing many people still can't wrap their heads around, so analogies can be helpful.
The book Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez has a chapter talking about the gender disparity in the roadways especially during winter. It’s an interesting read and it shows how the patriarchy really affects every aspect of life including the car-centric infrastructure.
The gist is women do a lot of unpaid labor so their commutes are not just going from home to work. There’s a lot of caregiving women do more than men and that means traveling to various points like daycare pickup or groceries or helping their aging parents. Whereas a lot of men just worry about getting from home to work and back.
There was this interesting case about women being disproportionately affected by falls during the winter in snowy areas bc the cities prioritize clearing snow for the daily commute but not for the general tasks/chores women tend to do. So they end up on icy sidewalks waiting for buses that can’t get close to the curb bc it’s covered in snow and they suffer more falls. But when a city prioritizes clearing snow off sidewalks/bus lanes then women have less falls.
The book also emphasized the need for a robust public transportation system that isn’t just geared toward getting people into and out of the city for work. A good public transit system should involve being able to get around more places in the city and not just a funnel to the downtown. And if we improve public transportation then women’s lives on average will become easier.
Thank you. I'll look out for it. It sounds like a good read.
It was a very good read and eye opening to how women globally are expected to take on various amounts of unpaid labor. I like that it wasn’t focused just on the US but talked about women’s issues across cultures and continents.
Add in victim blaming for pedestrians or cyclist during accidents, like how women are blamed for being women when they get assaulted.
That is already in there.
Based on how I've heard drivers complain and rage when they "almost hit a pedestrian" who had the gall to use a cross-walk at an inopportune time - it really maps a little too well onto how some men complain about how women dress who don't want to get hit (on).
Even the "well what were you wearing" question comes up in both.
First question when a cyclist or a woman gets hurt is always "what were they wearing?" Women always blamed for drawing too much attention to themselves and cyclists always blamed for not drawing attention to themselves. No wonder women are so underrepresented as cyclists in the US--they have no chance.
Unironically the “American” solution for both would be to wear a medieval suit of armor, rather than any attempt to acknowledge the social issues that might be at the root of these problems.
The only problem for me is that it doesn’t really hold up for my country, the Netherlands XD
I'd say it still works by showing it doesn't have to be that way and adjusting is better for everyone. It's similarly much more comfortable being a woman in public in the Netherlands (I did grad school there it's so nice) vs much of the US.
Absolutely spot on.
As a trans woman, this is incredibly accurate. The feeling is very similar.
Not a terrible analogy. Some places are designed by drivers with only cars in mind and refused to change, and some places have added protected bike lanes and such. There's things that can be done to improve the welfare of those not considered in the initial design, but it's done against the loud complaints of drivers who treat it like a penalty to them personally.
you know I did find that when I started cycling everywhere I suddenly understood a lot more about racism and sexism and homophobia, etc.
as a cis white guy, having masses of people feeling free to threaten me, or lecture me, or openly fantasize about murdering me was a very new and illuminating experience!
Hell yeah.
I’m starting to firmly believe that there’s a strong correlation between car culture and brain damage. The most brain-damaged (literally) people, are either classic car enthusiasts and SUV drivers who continually demand the price of fuel to decrease. Add about 25-30 years of Fox News viewing and you have modern America.
Some people need to work on their irrational fear of men
Found the man
And just like in feminism, there’s the loud minority that ruins everything for the average advocate (vehicular cycling and misandry)
Eh? Vehicular cycling is a vital part of controlling traffic and preventing overtaking when it is unsafe. If you want to die, ride unseen in the gutter.
By vehicular cycling, I don’t mean cyclists who safely ride in traffic, I mean cyclists who want other cyclists to ONLY ride in traffic
The term has a very specific meaning though, it's usually employs "taking the lane", or a method of cycling where you emphasise your position in the road to claim space, and redirect traffic around you as if you were a full vehicle. We would probably need a new term for what you describe.
They are describing current day vehicular cycling advocates while you're describing the only useful thing to come out of vehicular cycling in the past. The core component of vehicular cycling is that bikes should be treated as cars and smooshed into car infrastructure (sometimes literally), which is a horrible idea unless the only other option is that cycling is impossible. It does recommend the best way to ride on a road, but the advocacy wing of it is saying that bikes don't need their own lanes and should just ride in traffic.
Modern cycling advocacy says bikes should be treated as bikes and given a share of the public space in which they can safely be bikes. It views any time a bike needs to mix with significant car traffic as an infrastructure failure, thus knowing how to ride with traffic is a skill that no one should ever need.
Thanks for this, I'm very much on the edges of cycling discourse and was always wondering why people seemed mad at vehicular cycling when my understanding of it was 'take the lane'.
I think the linked video above goes into more depths if you're interested. I haven't seen that one myself, but have seen other stuff covering the same topic. It is an interesting bit of history.
Did you come into this thread to tell us women are too angry about being killed
...which part of “loud minority that ruins everything” rang “women are too angry about being killed”
Well you claimed that misandrists ruin feminism, which implies that you think some women are too mad at men.
Vehicular cycling is actually the presumed standard in many countries when there is no bike lane. Which incidentally mirrors, how women are often told to be more confident to gain the same benefits as men, but then projecting that confidence is getting read as misandry.
That also works, but my point refers to the extremists in these groups, cyclists who believe vehicular cycling is superior to proper cycling infrastructure and “feminists” who believe women are superior rather than equal to men. Horseshoe theory and everything
Horseshoe theory is BS
[deleted]
Uh... yeah? That’s why I put them in quotations?
misandry doesnt fucking EXIST
Muh misandry!!! You consider pointing out the shit too many men do as “misandry.” You use that word as if it’s any way comparable to misogyny 😂😂😂 grow up
[deleted]
So, statistically speaking, they really aren't. Men are far more likely to cause crashes than women. But also, that's not remotely the point of the post.
[deleted]
Observations aren’t data.
That's because your observations are wrong...
Statistics don’t care about your personal observations 🤓
The part I have an issue with is "The roads are build for cars". They're not. If they'd said "Drivers (men) think the roads were built for them, but they weren't..." that would be a far better analogy.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
This sort of works for the men/women side too. The human world isn’t built for men, it’s built for people, but the default human is often a man.
Isn’t that the same thing in the end?
From one point of view, yes.
To facilitate change it helps to see them as different things.
“The world is already built for humans, so why change it?”
Vs.
“The world in fact has a narrow idea of “human” and needs to take into consideration those outside that narrow view. Let’s try to make a world for everyone.”
That doesn’t “facilitate change” because just like how it is with cars, the infrastructure is built for men because men have been in control since the dawn of humanity. How is saying that bad?
Sorry I think we are talking at cross purposes. Or I haven’t made myself clear.
I, personally, am not saying that the world is built for humans. I am saying that that is the argument put forward by others. In fact I also think the world is historically built for and by men and that that is one of the main problems we face.
So I don’t think saying it is bad. It’s good. It’s what I say and think.
But it wasn’t clear from what I wrote above. Apologies.
I think the world needs to be built for everyone. Which it currently is not.