surreal

Checked out your link. I used to be the Shrugger, BITD. But, now I'm the Poseur. Marriage can do that to a Shrugger. Now, in true LCF spirit, allow me to discredit your outdated linked op-ed by saying that ppl who don't own TVs don't bring it up unprompted; we bring it up when some incredibly fascinating co-worker asks us if we've seen a particular episode of some garbage TV program. Or, worse yet, if we've seen a particular commercial. At that point, the proclamation that we don't own a TV is intentionally annoying, b/c it's punitive. If you ask me if I saw a particular Geico ad, you'd best believe that vengeance will be swift and ruthless.

BTW, I'm telling you a little bit about my viewing habits/lack thereof, in part, b/c I have an overdeveloped sense of justice. Link me to a 2.5 year-old, non-funny counter-anti-TV piece on The Awl, and you get what you get.

jon c. 

But the thread is about understanding backlash against advocacy, which presumably must include interacting beyond this forum. Certainly if one wishes to succeed in advocacy, one must try to understand what works and what doesn't. It's not whether or not one speaks of being carfree, but how one speaks about it that makes the difference if you wish to persuade the general public.

I-Like-To-Bike

Who gets to define the physical and philosophical attributes and requirements for THE Carfree Lifestyle, beyond not using and/or owning a motor vehicle; You, Ekdog and Tandempower types who want to wrap all sorts of your own personal opinions on not necessarily related cultural, social, and political topics?

Just because you fellows think non related issues (to include anti motorist/motoring ranting) are joined at the hip with a carfree living lifestyle, and this is the appropriate forum to rant and rail about them, doesn't make it so. If somebody else who is car free feels strongly about race relations, or gun control or abortion or any other hot button issue, that does NOT make them carfree living lifestyle issues.

cooker

"Unrelated" LOL. It's bizarre that you are so indignant that people are daring to discuss why to live car-free, and are proclaiming that we must only discuss how to live car-free.Yes, and you too if you want to.

rebel1916

I don't have a cable connection. Which means I can't watch TV. I do own one though.

GetOuttaMyWay

And to expand on that, realize that what works for one doesn't necessarily mean that it will work for all.

no1mad 

I have cable and a television (3 actually), but the cable is for internet. I can stream most shows that I'm interested, though finding sports (especially live) has been kinda difficult.

GetOuttaMyWay

You want to discuss your motivations for LCF, fine, there is a thread for that I believe, but your reasons for doing so won't help people interested or curious about making the switch themselves.

Sometimes the best way to advocate something is simply to just show others how it is done and not try to convice them why they should do it.

cooker

Leading by example is a fine thing, but it isn't really "advocacy".

cooker

There's actually a case to be made in any kind of activism, that aggressive, preachy and annoying tactics, that offend a lot of people, still work indirectly. People naturally like to choose a "middle ground" on any issue, and avoid the extremes (and extremists), but the extremes in turn help define where the "middle" actually is. So people who loudly and angrily propose really far out and drastic changes, actually help make the people proposing only moderate changes, seem safe and reasonable.

rebel1916

When I wanna watch football I go to my firehouse. I get the MotoGP streaming package. I gave up on baseball and hockey years ago. And if there is ever a boxing match I want to see, I go to a bar that's showing it in the back room. The number of shows I want to see in a year can be bought on iTunes for less than the price of one months cable bill. But truth be told, my wife is the one who pulled the trigger. Otherwise I'd probably be watching the same episode of Pawn Stars for the third time right now.

no1mad 

Like that new guy up in A & S who proposes to replace the personal auto with automated pods running on narrow gauge rails laid on top of the existing streets?

Edit: Clarification- he proposes removing personal autos from city streets and storing them at remote facilities on the outskirts of the rail network so that people could still use them for recreation (joy rides, hunting/fishing/camping, travel) and not eliminate them entirely.

Edit 2: Here is the link to that thread- https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ystem-possible

I-Like-To-Bike

I didn't notice anything in the purpose of this forum anywhere that said this forum was for advocating a carfree lifestyle or any other kind of lifestyle. Nor did I see any call for preaching political, social or environmental activism, extreme or otherwise.

Again, just because some LCF people have ardent positions on these subjects does not make their political/social hobbyhorses carfree subjects or a component of a so-called carfree lifestyle. Nor does the passion of some political activists make their OT rants appropriate as described by the stated forum purpose.

In this specific thread the subject of advocacy seems appropriate, but I believe it is a mistaken assumption of a few pushy advocates for lifestyle and political change, to include "extreme" activism, that their opinions and "activism" on those issues are on topic in any LCF thread, no matter if it has absolutely nothing to do with:

"Did you give up your car for good? Is your bike and public transportation the only way you travel from point A to point B? If your only mode of transportation is your bike, discuss your car-free lifestyle here."

cooker

Yet you jump in with your comments and observations and rebuttals on all these inappropriate, off-topic threads...

Roody

If you noticed somebody "advocating" or being "political" on an inappropriate thread, by all means call them on it. But I don't believe that happens on this forum, or at most very rarely. I mean, if there is a thread about panniers or cycling routes, for example, I don't see people hijacking it with "political" messages.

I'm not sure why you come on a thread like this one--which is clearly labeled for content--and start with these oft repeated complaints. To me, you are the one who is hijacking.

surreal

Let's be honest; the descriptions of all the various sub-forums tend to be off the mark. That being said, if this one is about "giving up your car for good", then anti-car sentiment is completely on-topic. This isn't the "living bike-rich" forum.... it's about "living car-free". Might as well face it: ppl don't tend to give up items (eg, cars) or activities (eg, driving) that they respect, enjoy, or love.

GetOuttaMyWay

I initially thought like this, but then I went and looked up the various ways to define "advocacy". Turns out that like minded individuals that come together to form a support group (and this forum is just that) can be considered a form of advocacy.

That being said, I also tend to share your feelings that a few are a bit too strident in their anti-car mentality.

Machka 

Let me introduce you (and a few others) to the Advocacy and Safety forum.

https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdispl...acy-amp-Safety


If you want to talk about advocacy, there is an entire forum dedicated to that topic. Check it out!

GetOuttaMyWay

Or just maybe it has been happening for so long that you've grown immune to it.

When people start talking about road subsidies/fuel taxes, farm subsidies, and other policies that are set into place and enforced/administered by various governmental agencies- that is political in nature.

tandempower

The fact is that whether you're already living car-free or just want to, political issues are a factor insofar as urban planning facilitates or impedes your choice to live car-free. To say that people should just live car free if they want but not express any will for their geographical surroundings to be managed in a way that facilitates their choice, which amounts to facilitating the choice of anyone who is willing to live car free as well, is effectively advocating for anti-car-free interests. Really there is no politically neutral position, unless you consider car-free living neutral insofar as the human body is inalienable and anything else is, well, alienable.

Machka's post here is a good example of advocating for the use of separated categories to relegate discussion away from where she doesn't want it to where she does. Machka, when you provided examples of various bike trails with amenities on the other thread, e.g. Harvest Trail, that was effectively advertising and advocating the use of those trails. I know you don't want to think of it that way because you want to have a line between advocacy and 'just normal talk' so you can prize 'normal talk' and decry advocacy, but the reality is that the word, "advocacy" literally means "speaking toward," i.e. ad = toward and vocate = speak. Anti-advocacy is thus also a form of advocacy. If you really don't like advocacy, you should just let things go that you dislike and not say anything. Otherwise you are advocating against them.

Roody

I think you misread my post you're responding to. I said that I have never seen a thread about practical cycling matters where somebody suddenly started talking about political issues. The only hijacking I see on this forum is people who come on a so-called political thread to say how much they hate political threads. This is rude and disruptive behavior, as discussed in the forum guidelines.

This forum is is a discussion group about carfree living. This is a subject matter that covers a broad range of topics. Few people will be interested in every topic discussed. It should be a simple matter for people to avoid the topics they're not interested in.

An Internet forum is like a large cocktail party. There are many conversations going on at the same time. Listen briefly at each conversation group. If you find the topic interesting, stay and participate. If the topic is boring to you, move on to the next one. But don't stand there and say, "This is a boring topic. You people must talk about what I want to talk about! Or else I will stand here whining until everybody stops talking! Waah, waah!"

Machka 

Ummmm .... the Harvest Trail isn't a bike trail ... it isn't even a trail.

Roody

Carfree advocacy is off topic on that forum, which I thought you knew. It is for bicycling advocacy only.

Why are you spending so much time advocating against advocacy? How does advocacy harm you personally? The bike trails that you enjoy would not exist if it wasn't for advocacy. The public transit you rely on would not exist if people hadn't advocated for it. Even the sidewalks would not be there if residents didn't advocate for them.

Why do you get so angry and defensive about a normal and valuable part of democracy? Governments have limited revenues. Everybody must speak up and explain why they think their cause is important enough for the government to spend money on it. If you don't speak up, you will never see your good ideas become real.

Roody

That's not his point and it's mean to laugh at people who make a small mistake. Why don't you respond to the point he was making, instead of to a trivial mistake? Are you trying to divert us from your not having a real point? I hope not, but that's what it looks like....

Machka 

Back when I first mentioned the Harvest Trail, and he asked a bunch of questions about it, I told him to look it up ... and tried to explain what it was. Evidently he wasn't paying any attention.

But my point is ... we've got an 'Advocacy and Safety' forum here ... let's use it for Advocacy topics instead of trying to turn this forum into the little sister of 'Advocacy and Safety'. We don't need two of those forums!