4 ms·

I don't really see why the format is unreasonable (when either you or I used it) and I don't disagree with your points on aggressive drivers killing people. Tha

by jm__87 8y ago

I don't really see why the format is unreasonable (when either you or I used it) and I don't disagree with your points on aggressive drivers killing people. That is obviously part of what is happening. I feel we should be implementing rules that make everyone safer. I was only offering another side to the story that the article omitted as it seemed to be slanted against drivers.

scosman 8y ago
You criticized me for using it. It seems you think something about my response is unreasonable. If you need it spelled out, the disturbing thing about your response if you used anecdotal examples to perpetuate and justify a negative sentiment towards a marginalized group that's being killed. It was in response to an article discussing how anti-cyclist sentiment is dangerous, and how it is killing people. Further, you generalized an entire population based on the actions of a few. It's a common tactic to pivot every conversation about cyclist and pedestrian deaths into a conversation about how they are aggressive and don't follow rules. This tactic is one of the things preventing a real reduction in deaths in our streets. It's especially frustrating when that's been disproved repeated by studies.
- jm__87 8y ago
  I didn't criticize the format. I was criticizing the fact you're taking a side on the issue, when clearly the issue is more complicated and we need to address both sides if the city is going to come to a solution that is viable. I don't see how anecdotes are off the table for a discussion forum. Maybe if we were using this discussion to draft legislation, sure, let's do some controlled studies. But we are not drafting legislation here. We're talking about peoples opinions: the anti-cyclist sentiment in the city of Toronto. This sentiment is entirely based on the collective personal anecdotes of people who drive in Toronto. I shared a small subset of those anecdotes. Cyclists are hardly marginalized in Toronto. To be marginalized is to be treated as insignificant. I'm pretty sure no one in Toronto, both drivers and non-drivers, could agree with that statement given the amount of attention cyclists have got over the years in Toronto press and city council. I also made a point of not generalizing the entire population on the actions of a few. I specifically said, "not all cyclists in Toronto are like this". There is no tactic being deployed here. I'm on the side of making things safer for everyone, including cyclists, and I feel that means lowering speed limits for drivers and coming down on unsafe cyclists. You want to turn this in to a victim-oppressor type situation when it is clearly not. And this is the problem I have with this whole conversation about cyclists in Toronto.

by jm__87 8y ago

scosman 8y ago

You criticized me for using it. It seems you think something about my response is unreasonable. If you need it spelled out, the disturbing thing about your response if you used anecdotal examples to perpetuate and justify a negative sentiment towards a marginalized group that's being killed. It was in response to an article discussing how anti-cyclist sentiment is dangerous, and how it is killing people. Further, you generalized an entire population based on the actions of a few. It's a common tactic to pivot every conversation about cyclist and pedestrian deaths into a conversation about how they are aggressive and don't follow rules. This tactic is one of the things preventing a real reduction in deaths in our streets. It's especially frustrating when that's been disproved repeated by studies.

jm__87 8y ago
I didn't criticize the format. I was criticizing the fact you're taking a side on the issue, when clearly the issue is more complicated and we need to address both sides if the city is going to come to a solution that is viable. I don't see how anecdotes are off the table for a discussion forum. Maybe if we were using this discussion to draft legislation, sure, let's do some controlled studies. But we are not drafting legislation here. We're talking about peoples opinions: the anti-cyclist sentiment in the city of Toronto. This sentiment is entirely based on the collective personal anecdotes of people who drive in Toronto. I shared a small subset of those anecdotes. Cyclists are hardly marginalized in Toronto. To be marginalized is to be treated as insignificant. I'm pretty sure no one in Toronto, both drivers and non-drivers, could agree with that statement given the amount of attention cyclists have got over the years in Toronto press and city council. I also made a point of not generalizing the entire population on the actions of a few. I specifically said, "not all cyclists in Toronto are like this". There is no tactic being deployed here. I'm on the side of making things safer for everyone, including cyclists, and I feel that means lowering speed limits for drivers and coming down on unsafe cyclists. You want to turn this in to a victim-oppressor type situation when it is clearly not. And this is the problem I have with this whole conversation about cyclists in Toronto.