View Full Version : "You're not a car!"...
...Thus was I enlightened today by an young female motorist, who must have thought she was rescuing me from a dangerous and inconvenient identity crisis. It was a downtown intersection, two narrow lanes in each direction, cars parallel parked in the right lane in front of me (across the intersection), so I was in the center of the left lane, first in line at the red light, waiting to go straight. Ms. Holmes was coming from the street on my right, and made a left turn onto my street, crossing in front of me (and offering her sage advice) during her turn.
I didn't know how to respond, so I just smiled and tried to let it go. I was probably as crazy and ignorant in her mind as she was in mine, and I don't think any talking (much less yelling) point would have changed that. Perhaps next time I'll smile and say, "Thank you!". Sarcasm would seem to be at least as effective as anger, and more satisfying than silence.
How 'bout: "Hey, neither is you! Can't fool me, you're a girl!" :D
Santaria
06-26-06, 04:59 PM
"You've no fear of being mistaken as smart either."
Of course, it only would be funny to stare at her if she actually had to stop for any definite time next to you and just keep looking at her in that crazy, guy on a bike in traffic sorta way.
Next time make VROOM VROOM HONK HONK sounds.
"No, but I'm allowed to act like one... "
CommuterRun
06-26-06, 06:03 PM
"You're not a car!"
"Wow, nothing gets past you! You should run for public office!"
fordfasterr
06-26-06, 06:07 PM
I want to bring up a point that I have made a few times before..
For some reason, the most offensive people that I have encoutered (while riding my bicycle) on the roads have all been women.
3 out of 4 incidents with motorists that I've had since December 5 of 2005 have been with women drivers. Some vocal, others not... but all have been cruel and unforgiving !!!!!!!!
I usually come back with "You're not a fish!"
It is exactly as obvious - and at least as relevant.
Flamingmb
06-26-06, 06:26 PM
gestures speak louder than works..........
unkchunk
06-26-06, 06:37 PM
I got that beat. Last week a guy shouted "I can see your vagina!" at me as he drove pass. That really hurt. I mean if that was the case... how come he didn't see my giant clit?
2manybikes
06-26-06, 07:12 PM
how about........ " How can you tell? "
noisebeam
06-26-06, 07:30 PM
Why is this perceived as obnoxious or ignorant?
It was a statement of fact. Maybe she was happy that there was one less car.
Al
I usually come back with "You're not a fish!"
It is exactly as obvious - and at least as relevant.
As in Gloria Steinem/Irina Dunn, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle"?
Chris L
06-26-06, 09:35 PM
how about........ " How can you tell? "
"Can you tell? I've had a wash!".
Why is this perceived as obnoxious or ignorant?
It was a statement of fact. Maybe she was happy that there was one less car.
If you're kidding, I commend your imagination and sense of humor. If you're serious, your idea is only plausible if you weren't there. Her tone of voice unmistakably conveyed not happiness, not respect, not even anger really, but contempt. Implied was: "The road is for us cars, stupid. You're not a car, so quit acting like one. Poser."
That she said "you're not a car", rather than "that's not a car", suggests to me the degree to which many people identify with their vehicles. (To some extent I suppose this identification is natural, at least within the context of traffic on the road, but I think psychologically it goes much deeper than this.*)
*On a metaphysical note (related tangentially to the title of this thread, though not of the forum), I wonder if it's any less absurd for a driver to identify with the vehicle they "own" and seem to control, than for a person to identify with the body they "own" and seem to control. Sure, it seems like a body -- or a car-and-driver -- is autonomous, but aren't we far more complicated and interdependent than this identification (self with body, driver with car) suggests? Isn't this identification, in either case, partly true but not the whole truth?
One might object that a driver can abandon his/her car and explore places where the car cannot go. Surely a person can't similarly abandon his/her body and explore places where the body can't go, right? But isn't this just what we do when we dream? We (mentally) leave our body (which tends to rest where we left it) and explore a non-physical realm, a dreamworld, a world of the imagination or the unconscious.
And the plot thickens...consider the lifespan of a car-and-driver. It is "born" when the person drives the car for the first time. Interrupted by the non-driving times, the car-and-driver continues its waking "life" until finally one day the person drives that car for the last time. After that, the car-and-driver (as such) is dead, though the driver may live on and even drive a different car, and the car (if not destroyed or permanently abandoned) may enter a new car-and-driver "life" with a different driver.
If the analogy holds, then, we can suppose that a human being is a self-and-body, such that the body is physically created (by the act of conception, analogous to though somewhat different from the manufacture of a car), and soon thereafter it is inhabited by a self which already existed and will probably continue to exist after the body is dead. The same self may, during its lifetime, inhabit a series of different bodies -- some religions would call this "reincarnation", or if (so to speak) the driver went car-free, a simple "afterlife". (I suppose that might occur when the self has attained enlightenment, or nirvana, and therefore has transcended the cycle of reincarnation.) Although a single car will often go through multiple drivers, I would say it's rare-to-unheard-of for a body to go through multiple selves (unless one counts sudden and irreversible personality changes, perhaps precipitated by life-changing experiences or spiritual enlightenment, though this is a stretch). Usually burial or incineration seems to be enough to prevent a body from being reinhabited.
Anyway, in summary, perhaps this girl's message, "You're not a car", was only superficially an obvious statement of fact or an ignorant insinuation of wrongdoing. At a deeper level, even unconsciously, perhaps she was attempting to stimulate reflection, in the style of a Zen koan, leading to a profound insight into the nature of the universe and the meaning of life. In which case her words, far from obnoxious or irritated, were actually an expression of tremendous compassion and generosity, the act of a true bodhisattva, and I should indeed have said "thank you!" :D
donnamb
06-27-06, 01:15 AM
I want to bring up a point that I have made a few times before..
For some reason, the most offensive people that I have encoutered (while riding my bicycle) on the roads have all been women.
3 out of 4 incidents with motorists that I've had since December 5 of 2005 have been with women drivers. Some vocal, others not... but all have been cruel and unforgiving !!!!!!!!
It's true that women can be really cruel, but nothing unsettles me more than the male motorists who rant at me using either direct or indirect threats or implication of sexual violence. It's only happened a few times, but that's the stuff that gives me major nightmares.
donnamb - wtf? "Get off the road or I'll rape you?"
Daily Commute
06-27-06, 03:32 AM
It's true that women can be really cruel, but nothing unsettles me more than the male motorists who rant at me using either direct or indirect threats or implication of sexual violence. It's only happened a few times, but that's the stuff that gives me major nightmares.
This is EXTREMELY serious. If that happens again (and I hope it doesn't), do whatever you can safely do to get the license plate so you can report it to the police. Even if you don't get the license, call the police, and make a report with as many details as you can.
If the police don't take it seriously, go up the chain of command all the way to your elected officials, if needed. You can also call a local rape counseling group to see if you can get them to push the police/elected officials to take it seriously
You should have nightmares about this. You should be scared. Don't let this slide.
As in Gloria Steinem/Irina Dunn, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle"?
Yeah, I suppose that's why of all the nouns I've tried, fish resonates the best - although I don't use it only when women tell me I'm not a car. Feel free to substitute nouns à la Madlibs. "Pot roast" for some reason also works well.
Do a two handed point to your crotch and laugh maniacally.
LittleBigMan
06-27-06, 07:12 AM
I had a guy tell me exactly the same thing.
"You're not a car," he informed me. I had to stop, look at myself, and agree. No tires, engine, glass, or metal. Just skin, blood, and bones.
"You're right, by Jove!" I should have said. Too bad these things only come to me later.
DigitalQuirk
06-27-06, 07:22 AM
One might object that a driver can abandon his/her car and explore places where the car cannot go. Surely a person can't similarly abandon his/her body and explore places where the body can't go, right? But isn't this just what we do when we dream? We (mentally) leave our body (which tends to rest where we left it) and explore a non-physical realm, a dreamworld, a world of the imagination or the unconscious.
The world of our dreams still exists within the confines of the structure of our brain. Our consciousness doesn't actually go anywhere. We dream because our brains don't get switched off when we sleep. Being in this semi-conscious state while sleeping has likely been a contributing factor to the survival of our species.
And the plot thickens...consider the lifespan of a car-and-driver. It is "born" when the person drives the car for the first time. Interrupted by the non-driving times, the car-and-driver continues its waking "life" until finally one day the person drives that car for the last time. After that, the car-and-driver (as such) is dead, though the driver may live on and even drive a different car, and the car (if not destroyed or permanently abandoned) may enter a new car-and-driver "life" with a different driver.
If the analogy holds, then, we can suppose that a human being is a self-and-body, such that the body is physically created (by the act of conception, analogous to though somewhat different from the manufacture of a car), and soon thereafter it is inhabited by a self which already existed and will probably continue to exist after the body is dead. The same self may, during its lifetime, inhabit a series of different bodies -- some religions would call this "reincarnation", or if (so to speak) the driver went car-free, a simple "afterlife". (I suppose that might occur when the self has attained enlightenment, or nirvana, and therefore has transcended the cycle of reincarnation.) Although a single car will often go through multiple drivers, I would say it's rare-to-unheard-of for a body to go through multiple selves (unless one counts sudden and irreversible personality changes, perhaps precipitated by life-changing experiences or spiritual enlightenment, though this is a stretch). Usually burial or incineration seems to be enough to prevent a body from being reinhabited.
The analogy doesn't hold because, unlike cars, our bodies are not physically created; rather, they grow at a cellular level. It is not analogous to the manufacture of a car in any way, shape, or form. Cars are made from cold, unliving metal that is stamped out and welded together then painted, with people actively and consciously adding the necessary components. The only conscious, intelligent part that goes into us is when our parents choose to mate with each other, based on characteristics each finds desirable in the other. We don't have engineers that design improved humans; rather, our genetic code mutates randomly and infrequently. A mutation that is detrimental probably won't get passed on to the next generation, while good ones probably will get passed on. We eat, we grow, we continue to live. We stop eating, we eventually die, and nothing can be done to get us living again. Stop "Feeding" a car, it will stop running, but it does not actually "Die," because it is already dead. Put fuel into it, it will run again, but it cannot grow or heal. In theory, a car can last forever, providing that someone keeps changing worn components...but it still does not live.
A better analogy is to compare cars to the clothes we wear. Slipping into one's car is somewhat like slipping into a jacket. Thus, the cars people drive become an extension of their personality and says something about them, much like the clothes they wear. A man who likes to wear a suit and tie to reflect his success-driven business-like personality might choose to drive a Lexus, while a woman who enjoys wearing flowery sundresses may opt for a new Volkswagen Beetle. A no-nonsense hard-working T-shirt and jeans guy may opt for a Chevrolet.
My standard response to these sorts of things is
"You're fat and should be exercising"
Its worked like a charm twice now.
SingleSpeeDemon
06-27-06, 08:25 AM
My standard response to these sorts of things is
"You're fat and should be exercising"
Its worked like a charm twice now.
I'm fat and exercising, so that wouldn't work for me.
jimmuter
06-27-06, 08:41 AM
I want to bring up a point that I have made a few times before..
For some reason, the most offensive people that I have encoutered (while riding my bicycle) on the roads have all been women.
I would put teenagers up on the list too. I've had very few bad experiences, but most have been with teenagers. Women are usually too busy on their phones to notice me. :D
slagjumper
06-27-06, 08:43 AM
Got yelled at last week by a women in an SUV while I was on the state park road at Presque Isle, Erie PA. "Bikes should be on the sidewalks", she screemed. I think that she was looking for a reaction. The multi use path (MUP) is so busy there that you have to ride the road if you want to maintain 20 mph for any significant time. There are at least 2 "share the road signs" within a mile of where she yelled.
UmneyDurak
06-27-06, 08:56 AM
Got yelled at last week by a women in an SUV while I was on the state park road at Presque Isle, Erie PA. "Bikes should be on the sidewalks", she screemed. I think that she was looking for a reaction. The multi use path (MUP) is so busy there that you have to ride the road if you want to maintain 20 mph for any significant time. There are at least 2 "share the road signs" within a mile of where she yelled.
Perfect reply: SUV drives should be able to read!
JohnBrooking
06-27-06, 10:08 AM
As in Gloria Steinem/Irina Dunn, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle"?
Funny this should come up. The DittyBops 2006 Bicycle Bikini 2006 calendar (http://www.diddybops.com/calendar.htm) picture for June is an underwater scene with Abby and Amanda as mermaids, and a bicycle resting next to a treasure chest. I've wondered if this was intentionally a comment on that quote, or just coincidence!
zaphodbeeblebro
06-27-06, 10:58 AM
As in Gloria Steinem/Irina Dunn, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle"?
Both are deprived of one of the better diversions in life???
Got yelled at last week by a women in an SUV while I was on the state park road at Presque Isle, Erie PA. "Bikes should be on the sidewalks", she screemed. I think that she was looking for a reaction. The multi use path (MUP) is so busy there that you have to ride the road if you want to maintain 20 mph for any significant time. There are at least 2 "share the road signs" within a mile of where she yelled.
Well i think the point of a mup esp in a park is for relaxing not trying to break your personal speed records. As for ones not inside a park boundry that tend to cross lots of roads well those ones tend to have couple mile long stretches where you just dont realy have any one to worry about. Use those ones right and you can often beet a car to a destination.
As for the suv driver well if they could read they wouldnt be driving a suv tobegin with not in this day and age any how. Between high gas prices and higher repair costs f(or some suvs) owning a suv is getting more and more costly. Ive personaly seen ffewer this year than i did last year. Been seeing lots of new jeeps on the road though the ones that look like the first jeeps with softtops and removeable doors.
Personaly i find a jeep owner to me more courteous to a cyclist for some reason. Maybe because they tend to enjoy the out doors as much as we do. Hard to say for sure.
Back on topic ive even had cops who should know the laws tell me to get on the sidewalk or imo worst get in the right lane as in far right lan and im going to be turning left. Now ive done pedestrian turns now and then just because it some times gets me to where im going sooner. But i can get a left turn green light by god im gona take it.
krazygluon
06-27-06, 12:03 PM
On a similar bent to "For some reason, the most offensive people i have ncountered (while riding bike) on the roads have all been women" it seems (to me and my fiance) every time I get cut off by an SUV while driving, its beeing piloted by a SHORT woman. anyone notice this?
I'll second the teenager comment, as the last (and only time) I yelled at a cyclist while in a car, I technically was one. the road had a median, he was not only travelling toward me (into oncoming traffic) he was pedaling on the curb between the median and the road. I just yelled "wrong side of the road!" as i swerved to avoid hitting him.
what's the general take on law-abiding cyclists yelling at sidewalk cyclists?
My standard response to these sorts of things is
"You're fat and should be exercising"
Its worked like a charm twice now.
Only works if the person is fat, though. (This girl wasn't.)
And I still don't like that kind of response because it's telling people what to do. Two wrongs don't make a right.
If a motorist yelled, "it's safer on the sidewalk", at least they're not telling me what to do, and I could respond with "no it's not". But saying "you should [ride on the sidewalk]" or whatever is something that in my opinion doesn't deserve a response. I'll take it into consideration (hence, "thank you"), but then I'll decide what to do, and face the consequences.
Sorry to again divert my own thread, but this sort of "thank you" reminds me of something I observed yesterday. At an Alternative Energy Expo in Rochester, NY, Senator Hillary Clinton moderated a panel, which then took questions from the audience. One person explained how there were anti-trust violations going on as he spoke, something to do with wind turbines and his own property, and giving details (most of which I forget). The gist of his question was "will you please investigate this." Clinton's two-word response before calling on the next person: "Thank you." Maybe she's on top of it (though one would wonder why she didn't bother to tell us so -- a great PR opportunity), but it sure sounded like the sarcastic/dismissive "thank you" with which I might respond to a comment like "You're not a car".
(P.S. I'm not a Democrat or Republican so don't hear this as a partisan gibe. It's not.)
The world of our dreams still exists within the confines of the structure of our brain. Our consciousness doesn't actually go anywhere. We dream because our brains don't get switched off when we sleep. Being in this semi-conscious state while sleeping has likely been a contributing factor to the survival of our species.
Good point. Though I don't think the theory of the collective unconscious can really be disproven. Not that it's been proven either. But there's a lot about dreams, and psychology, and collective psychology that I think we don't understand, and I don't think biology or brain chemistry has much to say about this.
The analogy doesn't hold because, unlike cars, our bodies are not physically created; rather, they grow at a cellular level. It is not analogous to the manufacture of a car in any way, shape, or form.
I know; that's why I said that "the act of conception" is "analogous to though somewhat different from the manufacture of a car". I thought it was clear, and the foregoing quote underscored, that this was not a perfect analogy. But I think, generally, we can often learn a lot from analogies that aren't perfect -- that don't hold in every way, shape, or form, but that hold in certain ways, shapes, and/or forms. Of course there's the danger of taking an analogy too far, and though I'm probably guilty of that, I name irony and my tongue (in cheek) as defense witnesses. Perhaps they didn't survive the trip to the forum; I apologize for any resulting confusion.
A better analogy is to compare cars to the clothes we wear. Slipping into one's car is somewhat like slipping into a jacket. Thus, the cars people drive become an extension of their personality and says something about them, much like the clothes they wear. A man who likes to wear a suit and tie to reflect his success-driven business-like personality might choose to drive a Lexus, while a woman who enjoys wearing flowery sundresses may opt for a new Volkswagen Beetle. A no-nonsense hard-working T-shirt and jeans guy may opt for a Chevrolet.
That's a very good point! And certainly a closer analogy. Though I'm not sure anyone would say to a bum who wandered into a business conference, "You're not a suit!"
Only works if the person is fat, though. (This girl wasn't.)
And I still don't like that kind of response because it's telling people what to do. Two wrongs don't make a right.
If a motorist yelled, "it's safer on the sidewalk", at least they're not telling me what to do, and I could respond with "no it's not". But saying "you should [ride on the sidewalk]" or whatever is something that in my opinion doesn't deserve a response. I'll take it into consideration (hence, "thank you"), but then I'll decide what to do, and face the consequences.
Sorry to again divert my own thread, but this sort of "thank you" reminds me of something I observed yesterday. At an Alternative Energy Expo in Rochester, NY, Senator Hillary Clinton moderated a panel, which then took questions from the audience. One person explained how there were anti-trust violations going on as he spoke, something to do with wind turbines and his own property, and giving details (most of which I forget). The gist of his question was "will you please investigate this." Clinton's two-word response before calling on the next person: "Thank you." Maybe she's on top of it (though one would wonder why she didn't bother to tell us so -- a great PR opportunity), but it sure sounded like the sarcastic/dismissive "thank you" with which I might respond to a comment like "You're not a car".
(P.S. I'm not a Democrat or Republican so don't hear this as a partisan gibe. It's not.)
It would have been even better then. Stereotyping here, but she probably cares about her weight (don't all women - and men, too), and more importantly, she cares about other peoples perception on whether or not "those pants make me look me fat." (I've heard that question a few times ;) ) To call a non-fat girl, fat would probably have more of an effect than you might first believe. That line would probably keep her thinking about it for a while, although she may grow to resent bicyclists even more but maybe she would decide to get out of the car and excercise and possibly even on a bicycle... :D
Good point. Though I don't think the theory of the collective unconscious can really be disproven. Not that it's been proven either. But there's a lot about dreams, and psychology, and collective psychology that I think we don't understand, and I don't think biology or brain chemistry has much to say about this.
I know; that's why I said that "the act of conception" is "analogous to though somewhat different from the manufacture of a car". I thought it was clear, and the foregoing quote underscored, that this was not a perfect analogy. But I think, generally, we can often learn a lot from analogies that aren't perfect -- that don't hold in every way, shape, or form, but that hold in certain ways, shapes, and/or forms. Of course there's the danger of taking an analogy too far, and though I'm probably guilty of that, I name irony and my tongue (in cheek) as defense witnesses. Perhaps they didn't survive the trip to the forum; I apologize for any resulting confusion.
That's a very good point! And certainly a closer analogy. Though I'm not sure anyone would say to a bum who wandered into a business conference, "You're not a suit!"
We call upper management "The Suits" because they always wear suits whereas the peons don't. So...:D
On a similar bent to "For some reason, the most offensive people i have ncountered (while riding bike) on the roads have all been women" it seems (to me and my fiance) every time I get cut off by an SUV while driving, its beeing piloted by a SHORT woman. anyone notice this?
I think the woman I mentioned was small, though she was driving a small sedan, and everyone else who's yelled at me (only about 5 or 6 people) so far has been male (I hesitate to say "a man"), and most of them driving pick-ups or SUVs. Drivers who honk and/or cut me off, I don't usually see. (The car, yes; the person, no.)
what's the general take on law-abiding cyclists yelling at sidewalk cyclists?
I wouldn't do it, though I can't speak for anyone else. (And where I live, sidewalk cycling isn't illegal. Dangerous, perhaps, but I suspect many of the people I see doing it wouldn't know how to navigate traffic, and they're riding pretty slowly, so they're probably safer where they are.)
Only works if the person is fat, though. (This girl wasn't.)
And I still don't like that kind of response because it's telling people what to do. Two wrongs don't make a right.
If a motorist yelled, "it's safer on the sidewalk", at least they're not telling me what to do, and I could respond with "no it's not". But saying "you should [ride on the sidewalk]" or whatever is something that in my opinion doesn't deserve a response. I'll take it into consideration (hence, "thank you"), but then I'll decide what to do, and face the consequences.
Sorry to again divert my own thread, but this sort of "thank you" reminds me of something I observed yesterday. At an Alternative Energy Expo in Rochester, NY, Senator Hillary Clinton moderated a panel, which then took questions from the audience. One person explained how there were anti-trust violations going on as he spoke, something to do with wind turbines and his own property, and giving details (most of which I forget). The gist of his question was "will you please investigate this." Clinton's two-word response before calling on the next person: "Thank you." Maybe she's on top of it (though one would wonder why she didn't bother to tell us so -- a great PR opportunity), but it sure sounded like the sarcastic/dismissive "thank you" with which I might respond to a comment like "You're not a car".
(P.S. I'm not a Democrat or Republican so don't hear this as a partisan gibe. It's not.)
Its supposed to be taken as a comeback not a suggestion. People need to lighten up on this board...
Its supposed to be taken as a comeback not a suggestion. People need to lighten up on this board...
I understand. I still don't like it. If it works for you, great! I was just expressing my point of view. I'm not sure what makes you think I need to lighten up -- I'm not fat! :)
(Just to clarify: When I wrote, "I'll take it into consideration (hence, 'thank you'), but then I'll decide what to do, and face the consequences", I wasn't addressing you! If I had been, no wonder you think I need to lighten up! I was explaining how I'd respond to someone telling me what I should do, like "you should ride on the sidewalk.")
2manybikes
06-27-06, 06:53 PM
Funny this should come up. The DittyBops 2006 Bicycle Bikini 2006 calendar (http://www.diddybops.com/calendar.htm) picture for June is an underwater scene with Abby and Amanda as mermaids, and a bicycle resting next to a treasure chest. I've wondered if this was intentionally a comment on that quote, or just coincidence!
Compare the green trike in the Christmas photo to the one my dog is in.
I know, I know, all have in mine is a dog..........:(
DigitalQuirk
06-28-06, 07:21 AM
Good point. Though I don't think the theory of the collective unconscious can really be disproven. Not that it's been proven either. But there's a lot about dreams, and psychology, and collective psychology that I think we don't understand, and I don't think biology or brain chemistry has much to say about this.
Well, I think I've disproved it a good number of times. My dreams tend to be very vivid and sometimes I know I'm dreaming. Of course, this awareness usually leads to me "Waking up" to another dream, but there's usually sufficient time for me to try something. When my wife has been present in those dreams, we set up simple key words to say in the waking world. I would say one word, and she would say another. For instance, I might say, "Wood," and she would have to respond with, "Knot." I'd even tell her before she went to sleep about this, tell her what the first word is going to be, and she would learn the second word when we dream. Guess what? It never worked. We tried it the other way; same result. I tried it with others (ie; with my son), and it still never worked. That test sufficiently demonstrated to me that any notion of a collective unconsciousness or psychology is an illusion we create ourselves, and anything we may have foreseen in our dreams can be attributed to chance, since statistically, it's likely to happen now and then.
I know; that's why I said that "the act of conception" is "analogous to though somewhat different from the manufacture of a car". I thought it was clear, and the foregoing quote underscored, that this was not a perfect analogy. But I think, generally, we can often learn a lot from analogies that aren't perfect -- that don't hold in every way, shape, or form, but that hold in certain ways, shapes, and/or forms. Of course there's the danger of taking an analogy too far, and though I'm probably guilty of that, I name irony and my tongue (in cheek) as defense witnesses. Perhaps they didn't survive the trip to the forum; I apologize for any resulting confusion.
I would think that if the manufacture of a car was anything even remotely like the act of conception, the workers would be coming out of the factory with great big smiles on their faces and would probably never go on strike. It is true that cars have evolved, and that evolution is analogous though a whole lot more rapid to our own, but evolution applies to just about everything, both living and non-living.
That's a very good point! And certainly a closer analogy. Though I'm not sure anyone would say to a bum who wandered into a business conference, "You're not a suit!"
It happens all the time; men wearing suits generally don't fraternize with men wearing coveralls, and if they tried, someone would probably tell them they're not blue collar. The style of dress is how many identify people; think grunge and goth. Both evoke a style of dress and a persona. Someone trying to dress goth but isn't wearing all the right clothes will probably be told, "You know, you're not goth." This extends to the vehicle you drive as well, to the point that some cars, like the New Beetle and Dodge Neon, are considered "Girl" cars, while other vehicles such as pickup trucks are viewed as "Manly." In other words, the Neons and Beetles have become skirts and summer dresses, while trucks have become tank tops, T-shirts and jeans. To further illustrate, look how cars change from year to year, like fashions.
I respond with... "Really? Thanks for telling me. I'm legally bliind... hence the sunglasses."
or "But i stayed at a Holiday inn last night!"
Brian Ratliff
06-28-06, 12:23 PM
Two words:
NO SHEEEEIIIIIITTTTT...!
The statement of the obvious gets the stock response.
Well, I think I've disproved [the theory of the collective unconscious] a good number of times. My dreams tend to be very vivid and sometimes I know I'm dreaming. Of course, this awareness usually leads to me "Waking up" to another dream, but there's usually sufficient time for me to try something. When my wife has been present in those dreams, we set up simple key words to say in the waking world. I would say one word, and she would say another. For instance, I might say, "Wood," and she would have to respond with, "Knot." I'd even tell her before she went to sleep about this, tell her what the first word is going to be, and she would learn the second word when we dream. Guess what? It never worked. We tried it the other way; same result. I tried it with others (ie; with my son), and it still never worked. That test sufficiently demonstrated to me that any notion of a collective unconsciousness or psychology is an illusion we create ourselves, and anything we may have foreseen in our dreams can be attributed to chance, since statistically, it's likely to happen now and then.
By the theory of the collective unconscious, I didn't mean the notion that we all enter the same world when we're dreaming. Obviously, we can dream of someone else, and yet the person in the dream is not actually them. Most likely the dream is a reflection of our unconscious, and by the act of consciously observing our dream, we can hopefully integrate that aspect of our unconscious which is reflected in the dream. This is much more an art than a science, more like poetry than like prose, so it's notoriously difficult to prove/disprove or even to talk about intelligently.
By the collective unconscious, I was thinking more along the lines that, for example, Nazism in Germany couldn't have risen or become so powerful and dangerous without taking hold of the unconscious of the German people. Hitler, though an individual person, was also an expression of a collective madness -- was, in a sense, dreamt up by the German people as a reflection of an unintegrated aspect of their unconscious. Their individual and collective shadow was reflected in the person and regime of Hitler, and because it was their shadow -- because they were not conscious of it -- they were able to be so strongly affected and controlled by it, to the point of supporting a criminal and genocidal regime. (Not every German supported them, obviously, but enough did for them to have retained power as long as they did.) There is no reasoning with this type of madness.
Arguably a very similar thing is happening in the USA, though some people still violently resist the Bush-Hitler analogy (which needless to say is not perfect) and I'm not going to push it here. Carl Jung wrote a lot about the crucial and largely unexamined role of the psyche in world affairs during and between the first two world wars, and Paul Levy (http://www.awakeninthedream.com/) has recently applied a very similar sort of analysis to world affairs in the present. In my opinion, the study of mass psychology and collective madness does not require the theory of the collective unconscious (however interpreted) to be literally true. Perhaps we are all autonomous beings, yet because of the ways we necessarily interact in society, and because of the many subtle cultural and psychological influences we cannot avoid (or at least tend not to avoid), mass psychological phenomena can be observed and even (potentially) explained within a scientific worldview, even if they are too complicated to practically analyze. It may be easier, and perhaps more accurate (though this can be argued), to simply take the existence of a collective unconscious as a premise, see what we can learn by studying mass psychological phenomena with this premise, and then compare our results with scientifically-plausible explanations of reality (in which, for example, we are all autonomous and the collective unconscious is merely a construct).
Id say "as far as the law is concerned i am as i have the same rights to the roads and must obey the same laws as you do. There fror while i may not be in a car truck suv or on a motor cycle I am a vehical acording to the law." Maybe back it up with a nice odot (or your states DOT book as the case may be) provided book :)
noisebeam
06-28-06, 04:16 PM
If you're kidding, I commend your imagination and sense of humor. If you're serious, your idea is only plausible if you weren't there. Her tone of voice unmistakably conveyed not happiness, not respect, not even anger really, but contempt. Implied was: "The road is for us cars, stupid. You're not a car, so quit acting like one. Poser."
Uhhh, thats right I was not there, which is why I relied only on the facts you presented, of which you omited in your original post any mention of this persons tone.
Actually as "You're not a car!" is written it reads like an exclaimation, a surprise, not contemptuous.
Al
Uhhh, thats right I was not there, which is why I relied only on the facts you presented, of which you omited in your original post any mention of this persons tone.
Actually as "You're not a car!" is written it reads like an exclaimation, a surprise, not contemptuous.
Interesting! Actually, I didn't add the exclamation point until right before posting. Maybe I shouldn't have. Let me try again:
(annoyed/offended) "You're not a car."
Is that clearer? (I'm not being sarcastic.)
noisebeam
06-28-06, 08:01 PM
Interesting! Actually, I didn't add the exclamation point until right before posting. Maybe I shouldn't have. Let me try again:
(annoyed/offended) "You're not a car."
Is that clearer? (I'm not being sarcastic.)
Hey, actually it is! I mean- Actually it is. ;)
keep on having fun
Al
No wonder online discussion forums like BF so often give rise to heated debates over nothing. The tiniest punctuation can make a world of difference in meaning and tone. It's like the game, "Telephone". Ever tried having a debate through a line of people in that game? Neither have I, but from reading BikeForums, I think I know about how it would turn out!
Rule of thumb in email or online communication: Always give the other person the benefit of the doubt, because at every point where a misunderstanding is possible, it's also likely. At every point where humor or sarcasm is intended, insult or offense may be taken. At every point where friendly advice or observation is offered, arrogant or pedantic lecturing may be heard.
Multiply the possibility for misunderstanding by the number of interactions, and you have a tried-and-tested recipe for inferno!
You know, I haven't experienced all that much abuse at the hands of car drivers. Yes, there was that one woman who ran into me (her fault) and then yelled at me for scratching her BMW, but other than that, the vast majority of drivers I've encountered have been polite, given me plenty of room, stopped for me even though they had the right of way, and even smiled at me. I think the key is to act like a car: don't go back and forth from the sidewalk to the street (which is really erratic and unsafe), stay to the right unless you need to turn left, signal your intentions, and obey traffic lights. You know, be predictable. Car drivers like that sort of thing.
bragi: I agree about acting like a car, being predictable, and all. But the character of the drivers makes a big difference too. I grew up just outside of Seattle. Now I live in Rochester, NY. Guess which city, in terms of its drivers, is (IMHO) more bicycle friendly. (And, with due respect to Rochesterians, more friendly in many other ways.)
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.