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)

Roody 02-13-14 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16492689)
It's real. I hear it all the time.

Yes, you are in the epicenter of that form of backlash.

muzpuf 02-13-14 12:17 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by roody (Post 16492913)
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.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=364209 <----------------------liar

RPK79 02-13-14 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muzpuf (Post 16492938)

He's like a combination of Bernie Madoff and Peter Popoff.

cooker 02-13-14 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muzpuf (Post 16492773)
if someone wants to be car free good for them ........why do THEY think they need to promote their choice to the whole world ..............................

Because they believe the whole world needs to hear that message. Why does that make people angry?

muzpuf 02-13-14 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16493017)
Because they believe the whole world needs to hear that message. Why does that make people angry?

its not the message ..its the way the message is presented ------------->
http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Roody http://www.bikeforums.net/images/but...post-right.png 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.

cooker 02-13-14 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16492804)
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.

Smug, eh? It's always those guys are smug, or that person is smug. "Smug" is a bit of a red flag word, because you never call someone smug that you agree with, or if they're talking about something neutral like they own a dog. You only call them smug if their message is somehow annoying or threatening or otherwise offensive to you. Who really cares if someone talks all the time about being TV free? The question is why does that particular message cause you to label them smug, when you wouldn't call them smug if they prattled on about their dog all the time?

cooker 02-13-14 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muzpuf (Post 16493075)
its not the message ..its the way the message is presented

So we keep hearing, but are you sure? I somehow get the impression that it isn't really like that, but that anybody who promotes an alternate view to the status quo is pretty universally immediately dismissed or discredited.

RPK79 02-13-14 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16493257)
Smug, eh? It's always those guys are smug, or that person is smug. "Smug" is a bit of a red flag word, because you never call someone smug that you agree with, or if they're talking about something neutral like they own a dog. You only call them smug if their message is somehow annoying or threatening or otherwise offensive to you. Who really cares if someone talks all the time about being TV free? The question is why does that particular message cause you to label them smug, when you wouldn't call them smug if they prattled on about their dog all the time?


Because it does, cooker. Because it does. If I forcefully interjected some inane fact about my lifestyle constantly into conversation I would come off as smug about it just as much as the TV and car free folks do. The honest truth is most people probably couldn't give two fecal logs about your choice to be car free. I really really like road cycling and I love to talk about it, but I know most people don't want to hear about it so I hold it back unless I know people share the same interest or if someone asks about my hobbies.

RPK79 02-13-14 02:25 PM

I also firmly believe that one does not Advocate for Car Free living unless you have a deeper agenda. A belief that is held true by those in this thread who proclaim to be advocates for car free living.

By the way, trying to prove that I must feel personally threatened or offended by car free advocacy is hardly a way to promote your advocacy. As if I will suddenly realize that as a child I was beaten by a cycling hobo and now lash out at all people who don't own cars and having finally understood my projected feelings will come running into the car free lifestyle with abandon.

cooker 02-13-14 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16493313)
I really really like road cycling and I love to talk about it, but I know most people don't want to hear about it so I hold it back unless I know people share the same interest or if someone asks about my hobbies.

If you did overdo it and talked too much about road cycling, nobody would call you smug.

I-Like-To-Bike 02-13-14 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16493257)
The question is why does that particular message cause you to label them smug, when you wouldn't call them smug if they prattled on about their dog all the time?

I and perhaps others would call someone posting over and over about his favorite dog on this list either lost, ignorant or an obnoxious bore.

Someone posting over and over on this list about a superior morality because of personal habits, lifestyle, and possessions (or lack of such), or drones on about his favorite higher morality agenda issues with various theories about sociology, economics or politics, all unrelated to living car free, might be called smug at best.

RPK79 02-13-14 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16493361)
I and perhaps others would call someone posting over and over about his favorite dog on this list either lost, ignorant or an obnoxious bore.

Someone posting over and over on this list about a superior morality because of personal habits, lifestyle, and possessions (or lack of such), or drones on about his favorite higher morality agenda issues with various theories about sociology, economics or politics, all unrelated to living car free, might be called smug at best.

Thank you!

cooker's method of picking one small portion of a comment out and gnawing on it like a small dog throws me into a blind rage that is difficult to form coherent rebuttals. Especially since they rarely have anything to do with what was being discussed in the first place!

muzpuf 02-13-14 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16493257)
Smug, eh? It's always those guys are smug, or that person is smug. "Smug" is a bit of a red flag word, because you never call someone smug that you agree with, or if they're talking about something neutral like they own a dog. You only call them smug if their message is somehow annoying or threatening or otherwise offensive to you. Who really cares if someone talks all the time about being TV free? The question is why does that particular message cause you to label them smug, when you wouldn't call them smug if they prattled on about their dog all the time?


Mr. Cooker, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

cooker 02-13-14 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16493338)
By the way, trying to prove that I must feel personally threatened or offended by car free advocacy is hardly a way to promote your advocacy. As if I will suddenly realize that as a child I was beaten by a cycling hobo and now lash out at all people who don't own cars and having finally understood my projected feelings will come running into the car free lifestyle with abandon.

Sorry, I'm not really trying to make it about you, but since you're at least giving me some material I can work with (thank you!), I'm in a sense using your words as proxies for how I might speculate someody (else) in your situation might be reacting.

cooker 02-13-14 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muzpuf (Post 16493410)
Mr. Cooker, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Just think about it next time you call someone "smug". It may not just be about them.

RPK79 02-13-14 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16493439)
Just think about it next time you call someone "smug". It may not just be about them.

There really are smug people out there, cooker.

cooker 02-13-14 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16493380)
cooker's method of picking one small portion of a comment out and gnawing on it like a small dog throws me into a blind rage that is difficult to form coherent rebuttals.

Not my intention.

muzpuf 02-13-14 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16493465)
Not my intention.

I am beginning to think you are trying to hit that 10,000 post mark by St patricks day

cooker 02-13-14 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muzpuf (Post 16493518)
I am beginning to think you are trying to hit that 10,000 post mark by St patricks day

I don’t want to sound like I’m deliberately trolling, but I have been prodding a bit to try to get some kind of reaction that I hope sheds light on the OP question.

What we’re hearing repeatedly, is that if someone advocates about a car-free lifestyle, or the environment, or even for no TV, people react in anger or annoyance because they find the person as smug, or having an agenda, or they are somehow doing it wrong and would get the message out better if they could find a more palatable way of doing it.

Frankly, I’m a little skeptical of these explanations, and I think there is more to it. I think that people are already primed to react that way or interpret that way, and therefore they have pretty low threshold to react negatively. Basically as soon as they start to hear the message, the reaction is “Oh, oh, hear we go again, that same old smug, self-important enviro-whacky global warming cars are evil crap as usual” before the person even has a chance to make a case. In essence, just speaking up, automatically means you’re smug or “doing it wrong”.

But, that could just be me.

Anyway, just puttin' that out there.

cooker 02-13-14 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muzpuf (Post 16492938)

So if Al Gore weren't so smug, would you be open to accepting global warming; and conversely, if you ever grudgingly accept there is global warming, will you reassess Gore and conclude he wasn't so smug after all?

RPK79 02-13-14 04:32 PM

It's all about marketing and brand image. Whether you're selling coca-cola, gasoline, or car free living the most successful methods are going to be the same. I guess if negative advertising is your thing go for it. I, personally, try to see through that garbage. I guess it works for a lot of politicians though. Candidate A tells everyone Candidate B eats babies and fornicates with the Devil so everyone votes for Candidate A even though their policies suck.

RPK79 02-13-14 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16493678)
So if Al Gore weren't so smug, would you be open to accepting global warming; and conversely, if you ever grudgingly accept there is global warming, will you reassess Gore and conclude he wasn't so smug after all?

No one actually said Al Gore was smug. Muzpuf called him a liar and I implied that he was a con man playing on peoples religious faith in environmentalism. You just assumed we called him smug because he's so damned smug.

Roody 02-13-14 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker (Post 16493665)
I don’t want to sound like I’m deliberately trolling, but I have been prodding a bit to try to get some kind of reaction that I hope sheds light on the OP question.

What we’re hearing repeatedly, is that if someone advocates about a car-free lifestyle, or the environment, or even for no TV, people react in anger or annoyance because they find the person as smug, or having an agenda, or they are somehow doing it wrong and would get the message out better if they could find a more palatable way of doing it.

Frankly, I’m a little skeptical of these explanations, and I think there is more to it. I think that people are already primed to react that way or interpret that way, and therefore they have pretty low threshold to react negatively. Basically as soon as they start to hear the message, the reaction is “Oh, oh, hear we go again, that same old smug, self-important enviro-whacky global warming cars are evil crap as usual” before the person even has a chance to make a case. In essence, just speaking up, automatically means you’re smug or “doing it wrong”.

But, that could just be me.

Anyway, just puttin' that out there.

I think the smug part comes from South Park, which is a pretty intellectual program in some circles.

Roody 02-13-14 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPK79 (Post 16493698)
It's all about marketing and brand image. Whether you're selling coca-cola, gasoline, or car free living the most successful methods are going to be the same. I guess if negative advertising is your thing go for it. I, personally, try to see through that garbage. I guess it works for a lot of politicians though. Candidate A tells everyone Candidate B eats babies and fornicates with the Devil so everyone votes for Candidate A even though their policies suck.

But the thing is, you don't see through it. You have fallen for a huge lie that was paid for by the oil companies and their talk radio minions. You actually believe their BS that a scientific fact is untrue! Environmentalists might be smug, but they are not liars. You're an intelligent person. Why do you believe a clown like Rush Limbaugh more than you believe your high school science teachers?

RPK79 02-13-14 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16493746)
But the thing is, you don't see through it. You have fallen for a huge lie that was paid for by the oil companies and their talk radio minions. You actually believe their BS that a scientific fact is untrue! Environmentalists might be smug, but they are not liars. You're an intelligent person. Why do you believe a clown like Rush Limbaugh more than you believe your high school science teachers?

You actually believe the garbage spewing from the bought and paid for "scientists" and ignore the science discrediting them. "Green" science is a big money maker as long as they can keep governments worldwide dishing out the grant money and they can't do that unless they keep folks like you convinced of impending doom.

I don't listen to Rush. I do like Jason Lewis though...


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:21 PM.