Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Living Car Free (http://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/)
-   -   Understanding Backlash Against Car-Free Advocacy (http://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/929436-understanding-backlash-against-car-free-advocacy.html)

RPK79 02-13-14 08:47 AM

I think anyone reading this thread can tell quite easily why there is backlash against car free advocacy. At least within the microcosm of this forum. The vocal proponents are argumentative, dismissive of other ideas, and all around difficult to converse with. If you want to be an advocate for anything you cannot behave like that. You have to be able to convince people to agree with you without force. An in your face attitude will always have the opposite effect. If you are so abrasive in your argument (and it shouldn't even be an argument) that people begin to dislike you as a person you will never sway them to your side and will instead create staunch opposition (backlash).

muzpuf 02-13-14 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16491917)
In 15 pages, I don't think we ever mentioned a very real cause of backlash from motorists:

"You get in my way...you slow me down...I'm scared I will run into you...you're making congestion worse with your bike lanes."


In my opinion (just my opinion) the problems with cyclists is other cyclists ........... and what I mean by that is they do not give out IQ tests before letting someone loose on their bike ...........so every single person on these forums could follow every single rule of the road (stop at lights and signs, hand signals , reflectors, clothes, close to curb etc etc etc ) and all it takes one idiot weaving in and out of traffic using peoples cars as handrests blowing stop signs and lights to cause us to get lumped in with them ......... and is it a backlash against being car free ....... no its a backlash against trying to bully others to accept YOUR choice in life .....most people don't care ........if you want to wear celery on top of your head for the rest of your life because you want to be a celery stock fine go ahead .......but don't stop everyone you see and demand they accept you..........most people don't care either way........................................................ the squeaky wheel gets the most grease but is also the most annoying

rogertc1 02-13-14 09:16 AM

Actually it all comes down to the haves and have nots in the world. Some people can not afford an automobile and can only afford a bicycle. Even the most costly of bicycles shadow the price of a car. Some can afford to only live in an apartment and not their own house even with an small acreage.

Roody 02-13-14 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16492358)
I think anyone reading this thread can tell quite easily why there is backlash against car free advocacy. At least within the microcosm of this forum. The vocal proponents are argumentative, dismissive of other ideas, and all around difficult to converse with. If you want to be an advocate for anything you cannot behave like that. You have to be able to convince people to agree with you without force. An in your face attitude will always have the opposite effect. If you are so abrasive in your argument (and it shouldn't even be an argument) that people begin to dislike you as a person you will never sway them to your side and will instead create staunch opposition (backlash).

That's interesting. I see you the same way you see me: Arrogant, forceful, rude, off-putting. That's normal, because we disagree on an issue that we both feel passionate about. (Also, the Internet seems to exaggerate negative perceptions.)

You say it shouldn't even be an argument. Why is that? We disagree, so why would we not argue? I'm sure you would love for me to always agree with you, or at least pretend to agree. But that isn't going to happen, either here or in real life. If you say something I think is wrong, I'm not going to agree with you.

However, I will ignore somebody if I think they're an azzhat (like I'm ignoring two other people on this thread). But if I do argue with you, it means that I think you are interesting and challenging.

its interesting that two people have only one interaction with each other. That single interaction happens to be an argument. So they both conclude the other one is "argumentative" as a personality trait. That's not very logical if you stop to think about it.

I'm sure that in real life you're a lovely person, and so am I. :)

RPK79 02-13-14 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16492432)
That's interesting. I see you the same way you see me: Arrogant, forceful, rude, off-putting. That's normal, because we disagree on an issue that we both feel passionate about. (Also, the Internet seems to exaggerate negative perceptions.)

You say it shouldn't even be an argument. Why is that? We disagree, so why would we not argue? I'm sure you would love for me to always agree with you, or at least pretend to agree. But that isn't going to happen, either here or in real life. If you say something I think is wrong, I'm not going to agree with you.

However, I will ignore you if I think you're an azzhat (like I'm ignoring two other people on this thread). But if I do argue with you, it means that I think you are interesting and challenging.

I'm sure that in real life you're a lovely person, and so am I. :)

The internet does exaggerate negative perceptions. I'm sure we could share a beer and get along just fine in person.

I say it shouldn't be an argument because when it comes to advocacy (which is the topic at hand) you can't allow it to become an argument or you will never sway the other person. People don't respond to that. They won't change their minds when pressed in that manner. You have to bring things to their attention in a way that they come to the same conclusions as you. That is advocacy done right.

Roody 02-13-14 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16492447)
The internet does exaggerate negative perceptions. I'm sure we could share a beer and get along just fine in person.

I say it shouldn't be an argument because when it comes to advocacy (which is the topic at hand) you can't allow it to become an argument or you will never sway the other person. People don't respond to that. They won't change their minds when pressed in that manner. You have to bring things to their attention in a way that they come to the same conclusions as you. That is advocacy done right.

Sometimes advocacy is very forceful. Look at the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. Many years of being "in your face" were needed to make progress. Being "nice" did nothing.

RPK79 02-13-14 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16492515)
Sometimes advocacy is very forceful. Look at the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. Many years of being "in your face" were needed to make progress. Being "nice" did nothing.

I don't know. I would compare the results of the Black Panther movement against the results of Martin Luther King, JR and see which stacked up better.

SHBR 02-13-14 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogertc1 (Post 16492409)
Actually it all comes down to the haves and have nots in the world. Some people can not afford an automobile and can only afford a bicycle. Even the most costly of bicycles shadow the price of a car. Some can afford to only live in an apartment and not their own house even with an small acreage.

Its not quite that simple. There are many people who own cheap 2nd hand cars that live in low income housing. I personally know a few cyclists that are independently wealthy, that own a fleet of bicycles that collectively cost more than the average car.

Cars and bicycles are not the enemy, its a lack of communication and cooperation between the humans that use these machines.

Humanity has an increasing sense of entitlement that is not sustainable.

muzpuf 02-13-14 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16492515)
Sometimes advocacy is very forceful. Look at the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. Many years of being "in your face" were needed to make progress. Being "nice" did nothing.

"in your face" behavior from a average 150 lb shaved legged spandex wearing cyclists in road cleats ....might not even scare a senior citizen with a large purse

Roody 02-13-14 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16492532)
I don't know. I would compare the results of the Black Panther movement against the results of Martin Luther King, JR and see which stacked up better.

MLK was extremely forceful. That's the whole basis of his philosophy of non-violent action: unrelenting force that is never violent. The Black Panthers had a self-defensive philosophy: leave us alone or we will fight you. MLK, the more aggressive leader, the one who was always in their faces, was more effective.

Who is winning the global warming fight? Clearly, the oil companies with their lies and dirty tricks. Clearly not the environmental advocates with their friendly persuasion approach. These graphs will show you who is winning:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx#1

RPK79 02-13-14 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16492610)
MLK was extremely forceful. That's the whole basis of his philosophy of non-violent action: unrelenting force that is never violent. The Black Panthers had a self-defensive philosophy: leave us alone or we will fight you. MLK, the more aggressive leader, was more effective.

Who is winning the global warming fight? Clearly, the oil companies with their lies and dirty tricks. Clearly not the environmental advocates with their friendly persuasion approach. These graphs will show you who is winning:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx#1


You have to change that to climate change fight. The world hasn't been warming for 17 years. All the environmentalists changed their talking points to climate change over global warming years ago when it was clear the world wasn't warming.

muzpuf 02-13-14 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16492627)
You have to change that to climate change fight. The world hasn't been warming for 17 years. All the environmentalists changed their talking points to climate change over global warming years ago when it was clear the world wasn't warming.

HUH and I thought I was the only one saying this

cooker 02-13-14 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon c. (Post 16491875)
But I don't think discussing the environmental benefits of biking in lieu of driving is out of place here.

Don't worry, that is also something we often debate here. Debating about what we're supposed to debate is very meta.

cooker 02-13-14 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machka (Post 16491941)
Is that an actual quote from somewhere ... or something from your imagination?

It's real. I hear it all the time.

cooker 02-13-14 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16492358)
I think anyone reading this thread can tell quite easily why there is backlash against car free advocacy. At least within the microcosm of this forum. The vocal proponents are argumentative, dismissive of other ideas, and all around difficult to converse with. If you want to be an advocate for anything you cannot behave like that. You have to be able to convince people to agree with you without force. An in your face attitude will always have the opposite effect. If you are so abrasive in your argument (and it shouldn't even be an argument) that people begin to dislike you as a person you will never sway them to your side and will instead create staunch opposition (backlash).

I don't see it that way - you said yourself if someone talks to you about car-free-living, or not owning a TV or the environment, your first instinct is to tell them to shut up or you need to shut the conversation down immediately. From this side of the fence (and I don't address this personally to you, because you've been very forthcoming in this thread) that kind of pre-emptive hostility - "just shut up already" - is widespread.

cooker 02-13-14 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogertc1 (Post 16492409)
Actually it all comes down to the haves and have nots in the world. Some people can not afford an automobile and can only afford a bicycle. Even the most costly of bicycles shadow the price of a car. Some can afford to only live in an apartment and not their own house even with an small acreage.

I can afford anything I want. I own a 2001 Volvo only because my late mother stopped driving in her 80s and wanted my daughter to have it, and I own about 5 bikes.

muzpuf 02-13-14 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16492715)
I can afford anything I want. I own a 2001 Volvo only because my late mother stopped driving in her 80s and wanted my daughter to have it, and I own about 5 bikes.


So ......good for you.....do you want a cookie (that was a joke)

RPK79 02-13-14 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16492706)
I don't see it that way - you said yourself if someone talks to you about car-free-living, or not owning a TV or the environment, your first instinct is to tell them to shut up or you need to shut the conversation down immediately. From this side of the fence (and I don't address this personally to you, because you've been very forthcoming in this thread) that kind of pre-emptive hostility - "just shut up already" - is widespread.

...because of poorly done advocacy.

cooker 02-13-14 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muzpuf (Post 16492723)
So ......good for you.....do you want a cookie (that was a joke)

If he simply assumes that people who are car-free only do so out of necessity and poverty, he is misunderstanding this whole thread.

muzpuf 02-13-14 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16492759)
If he simply assumes that people who are car-free only do so out of necessity and poverty, he is misunderstanding this whole thread.

if someone wants to be car free good for them ........why do THEY think they need to promote their choice to the whole world ..............................

"(roody) Sometimes advocacy is very forceful. Look at the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. Many years of being "in your face" were needed to make progress. Being "nice" did nothing.

THAT STATEMENT IS WHY THERE IS BACKLASH

cooker 02-13-14 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16492742)
...because of poorly done advocacy.

Maybe. Or maybe you have some discomforts about the topics - for example maybe deep down you feel that perhaps you waste too much time watching TV, and should be doing something more productive with your time, and feel a little twinge of embarrassment or guilt when confronted with someone else's better example, so you don't like it when they talk about their own situation of not owning a TV, and want them to shut up, even though they aren't directly criticizing you.

RPK79 02-13-14 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16492774)
Maybe. Or maybe you have some discomforts about the topics - for example maybe deep down you feel that perhaps you waste too much time watching TV, and should be doing something more productive with your time, and feel a little twinge of embarrassment or guilt when confronted with someone else's better example, so you don't like it when they talk about their own situation of not owning a TV, and want them to shut up, even though they aren't directly criticizing you.

Nope. That is most definitely not it.

You missed the entire point of the no TV having people line of thought. It's not that they live a better life or anything like that. It's the smug self important need of theirs to even bring up the fact that they, unlike you, don't even own a television. That plays very well along the same lines of how [some of] the car free feel the need to tell everyone they meet, in their smug self important manner, that they don't even own a car. You would never experience this if the first thought in your head after them saying so was "Me too!".

Perhaps the person with the discomfort of a topic is you since you swung the direction of the conversation away from what I was talking about to something that I discussed several pages and many days ago?

rogertc1 02-13-14 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekdog (Post 16492018)


LOL... great story,

muzpuf 02-13-14 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ekdog http://www.bikeforums.net/images/but...post-right.png Local Legislator: No One Should Ever Ride Bikes In Suffolk County


Quote:

Originally Posted by rogertc1 (Post 16492843)
LOL... great story,

LETS USE THE WHOLE QUOTE --------------------------> no one who lives in our hamlet or for that matter in Suffolk County should ever ride a bicycle or motorcycle,”

Roody 02-13-14 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16492627)
You have to change that to climate change fight. The world hasn't been warming for 17 years. All the environmentalists changed their talking points to climate change over global warming years ago when it was clear the world wasn't warming.

This is a big fat lie from the oil and coal companies. The world continues to warm at an ever faster rate. You fell for the lie. Ha ha!!

The fact that some environmentalists started talking about climate change instead of global warming is a perfect example of how being "nice" can dilute and weaken your message, and make it easier for the liars to get away with their lies.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:59 AM.