antidooring.org
 

It amazes me that some people care so much about the subject of not sharing the road with bicyclists:

http://www.antidooring.org/

A Facebook rebuttal page:

https://www.facebook.com/anti.dooring.org.rebuttal

That right there is funny.

first link= funny

:lol:

For the first website, they suggested another website for complaints about the first website. Well, That domain name is up for grabs. Because it just leads to a bunch of sales websites that have nothing to do with cycling.

The Facebook page, has not had any activity, apart from the same who put up the first website, spouting his bilge on Facebook.

LOL


The creator of the web page had better not door any cyclists as s/he has demonstrated prior premeditation. At least that’s how I see it but then again I drive a fork lift for a living, not dispense legal advice. That I do for free :P

Sadly, the views on the first link, while tongue-in-cheek, are pretty close to what I encounter every day. Even many of the so-called bike advocates think we should confine ourselves to bike paths. In spite of my bubba-laden surroundings, I still enjoyed it.

You could fork him up good!! :)

Lives under a bridge, sings to self, and has arms too short to masturbate. So IT puts up hater websites and Facebook pages.

It's satire, for those who didn't get that.

I thought it was amusing, though not in very good taste. They need a better creative writer.

Do you say the same thing when you read The Onion...?

Satire that is in poor taste.

Whatever, I chuckled. Do you understand that the satirist is likely a cyclist, pointing out the ridiculousness of the belief that cyclists belong on the sidewalk and those who ride on the road are getting what's coming to them?

Have read the Onion, don't care for it; your point is...?

Sorry, I just think there are SOME THINGS that are a bit inappropriate for satire. Particularly when the user group it purports to represent is loaded with ignorant dingleberries who's BELIEVE it as new gospel. Ask some of the DC cyclists what they think of the public's perception of satire after Mr. Sports Illustrated on the radio got done.

His point is that, since you were calling the creator of the website a troll, you didn't get that it was satire (satire =/= trolling). I'll ask you the same thing that I asked Chris516: do you understand that, by satirizing an extremely anti-bicycle stance, the satirist is arguing AGAINST that stance?

Why do you think that the sentiment that cyclists should be run off of the road is inappropriate for satire (you see this from time to time in comments sections on online news outlets)? Satire can be an effective tool for showing the idiocy of such an antisocial belief. Personally I think that more abhorrent the belief or attitude, the more it deserves satirization; like neo-nazism, and supporting the murder of abortion providers. The only problem with satirizing such bat-**** insanity is the more extreme the position, the harder it becomes to make it look more ludicrous than it already is (Poe's Law).

:notamused: wtf is that c--p, posing as a website?
42 idiots "like" the Facebook page, while 3 are talking about it.

Oh, I understand satire; I just happen to think that the MULTITUDES of people who DON'T will take it seriously, and most of them A.) drive; and B.) hate sharing the road with bikes. That, combined with the fact that I don't consider bodily injury entertaining, is MY point.

In order for satire to be 'an effective tool', it must be RECOGNIZED; most people I encounter wouldn't recognize satire if you beaned them with it. Further, I'm not convinced that people intelligent enough to recognize satire would carry idiotic beliefs to the level that anti-cyclists go.

Your neo-nazi and abortion-provider vigilante examples aren't funny to me either; maybe you live in a gentler sector of society than I do, but I'm disturbed that the acts those groups commit haven't resulted in more vox pop uproar.

Well, I guess it's no surprise that a person who doesn't like satire wouldn't like satire...

I wouldn't be so sure. I've heard worse rhetoric in all seriousness from my coworkers.

One gem, right before I stopped talking to them, was this rant (paraphrased as best as I can remember):

Coworker 1: "Hey, did you ride into work today?"
Me: "Yeah, made good time despite the rain, so it was a good ride."
Coworker 1: "You didn't look too happy when you came in earlier"
Me: "Yeah, almost got hooked by some a**hole, he decided to pass me and turn right even though I was in the lane. I don't understand why people are in such a hurry to save a few seconds that they'll lose at the next light anyhow."
Coworker 1: "Too dangerous for me. I could never do that."
Coworker 2: "You know, I can't f***ing stand cyclists. It's disgusting how if you accidentally run one over, you'll probably get in trouble. I can't stand having to always look around for them. The pansy-a** liberals in this country have taken over everything and won't stop until driving a car is illegal."
Coworker 3: "If I saw someone run over a cyclist, I'd stop and wait for the police to arrive. You know what I'd do?"
Coworker 2: "What's that?"
Coworker 3: "I'd take the drivers side, lie to the police and say the cyclist was at fault. I'd run over his bike a few times for good measure too, make sure he thinks real long and hard about ever getting on one again."
Me: *fuming, barely able to contain myself* "What the hell did I ever do to you guys?"
Coworker 3: "You wasted my time."

I got up and walked away and decided to never converse with them again. Luckily I'm not on their team so it's easy to avoid them, but jesus. They've given me **** before, too, but nothing on that level, so I always just avoided the subject unless they brought it up. Were they trying to get a rise out of me? Probably. Would he actually do that? I have no idea. Maybe not. But there are people out there who really say these things and really believe these awful things. I really would not put it past someone to seriously create this page in earnestness, not satire.