Recall our new friend, Brendan O’Neill, who wrote a screed about how cyclists were so smug and a threat to becoming “unbearable”?
“In the spirit of friendship, I accept your offer to join you on your commute in San Diego. I will finally stand up and be a man and admit I will wrong. Also, I will stop cowering inside of automobiles while I writing about the feelings of other people as if I know what I’m talking about. I’m sorry that I said anything bad about cyclists as I don’t really do it so how the hell would I know? Please accept my apology and allow me to join you on your ride if you offer is still open.” 
Just kidding. He didn’t write back at all.
But I still have been thinking of this notion of calling cyclists “smug” and how it is a really clever manipulation.
It’s clever because it robs a cyclist of any kind of response. Now that the cyclist is “smug” we don’t hear a human talking, we hear a “smug asshole”.
This is the same kind of dehumanization that allowed otherwise good people to keep slaves and to work for the Nazis.
To dehumanize someone is to totally cut ourselves off from them. This is one of the reasons I despise the whole notion of looking at people as “motorists” as well. We are all human beings, and it’s unwise to think otherwise.
Dehumanization is also awesome because it allows one to win an argument when all the facts are against someone. In fact, when I see this kind of trick being pulled, I immediately stop listening to the speaker. Next, I assume that the speaker is trying to hide something and I look for it.
Usually it’s a whole bunch of facts. Here are some facts that bother Brendan:
1. Cycling is really good for you. It’s one of the best forms of excercise and those who cycle all their lives look much younger than their age with no surgery.
2. Cycling is the closest thing we have to a cure from childhood obesity AND to childhood type II diabetes. We’re wasting millions researching “the cure” for these problems, but if we spent this money on infrastructure, the drug company people would be poorer. But obesity and diabetes II rates would fall fast.
3. Cycling is super fun.
4. Cycling scales better than motoring. The notion of motoring for everyone is absurd and self defeating. Imagine competing for gasoline with 2 billion more people. Imagine sitting in traffic behind big trucks instead of whizzing by a few bicycles.
Motoring is one of those things where people can’t make up their mind. If it’s so great, why bitch about “traffic”? “Traffic” is merely a shit load of people motoring. And motoring is awesome right? Can’t have it both ways.
5. Cycling cuts down on congestion and petrol prices. If enough people do it. But instead we should drive those up by slandering cycling. Right?
So cycling is super awesome and the only argument that people have against it is to call cyclists names. Really mature.
March 2, 2012 at 16:22 |
Is this a true/false test? Based on myself, #1 is F, #2 is F, #3 is T but I know it is F for a lot of people, for #4 you use the rule that always or never items are F but it’d be T if it was usually scales better, #5 is also subject to the same rule since part of the equation depends on what fuel the bike engine is consuming and certainly cycling only increases congestion at the inadequate bike rack slots.
Seriously, if you want to call cyclists names, I suggest you call me “Steve.” And I’m going to expect YOU to volunteer…