What makes road.cc toxic?

There is not the sense of community on Singletrack and Off-Road.cc is not even singletrack.

I'm a utility MTBer, this is so much more my home.

Does that include these two?

Squirrels are pants.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Squirrels are pants.

Cats are evil, but they can be cute sometimes

My mrs has always mentioned Squirrels were evil and plotting to take over the world. Then she watched this (the second blue memory module clip) and had her fears confirmed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpZZQ2ov4lc

Be careful friend, squirrels have allies

https://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/719478/badger-bites-cat-penis

Haven't seen enough of these either if you ask me....

I could not agree more with hawkinspeter. The atmosphere used to be intelligent, well rounded and helpful. It could be lively, particularly around helmet use, but it was not at all bad by internet standards. It was one of the main attractions for reading this website.

Last autumn I had a bit of time recuperating from a minor procedure, and ktache, boatsie, mungecrundle, eburtthebike et al really helped while away the convalescent hours. That was Before, this, rather sadly, is After.

Even hawkinspeter and I had a bit of a disagreement once, but we set it aside and it ended with one of those small furry mammal pictures as a kind of online handshake.

It may take enormous discipline, but all those of us who remember how it used to be, and those who have joined hoping for that spirit, just need to remember: Do Not Feed. Our trolls have very specific dietary requirements and must not be fed by anyone. They can get up on their hind legs and beg for troll food, but we must not give in.

As for the rest, let's be kind. My reading of the stats may to you be outrageous cherry picking. Your fondness for the new EF kit may to me be incomprehensible. But if we can both agree that bikes are wonderful and our ability to keep riding them needs protecting and cherishing, then we can help each other.

You only have to look at the NMOTD traffic island discussion. Most are stating the cyclist could have done a lot better but the majority of the discussion is about the confusing rules on roundabouts and why the cyclist might have throught he was more in the right then he was. Then you have the "few" who post in deliberately provocative language against the cyclists actions and posting massively misleading evidence on why they are right. (Later admitting the language was deliberately exaggerating for "humour".)

I suspect the difference between here and off road etc is because most people here would have felt targetted and helpless on the roads due to driver carelessness or even is some cases deliberate behaviour. So anyone deliberately playing it down or finding the smallest bit to victim blame feels like an attack on most of us. On MTB sites, apart from the odd dog walker, rambler or rabid squirrel attack, there is less deliberate or death inducing conflict that can be used. 

I always enjoy the squirrel pics, and the humour.
The two who are always called out as "trolls", whilst they generally advance an opinion that diverges from the rest of the echo chamber, they do so without rancour and name-calling. The same can not be said for some of those who disagree with them, who find themselves unable to make their case in temperate language addressing the argument rather than the person.

Sriracha wrote:

I always enjoy the squirrel pics, and the humour. The two who are always called out as "trolls", whilst they generally advance an opinion that diverges from the rest of the echo chamber, they do so without rancour and name-calling. The same can not be said for some of those who disagree with them, who find themselves unable to make their case in temperate language addressing the argument rather than the person.

It's not so much that it's a divergent opinion, but the refusal to accept that they are deliberately distorting the truth and employing needless political language just to get a reaction. When you trap them in a corner, they just go off on a tangent, typically spewing hate and vitriol which again is just designed to get a reaction.

There's a world of difference between people arguing about sincerely held beliefs/opinions and someone just arguing to try to trigger someone.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

I always enjoy the squirrel pics, and the humour. The two who are always called out as "trolls", whilst they generally advance an opinion that diverges from the rest of the echo chamber, they do so without rancour and name-calling. The same can not be said for some of those who disagree with them, who find themselves unable to make their case in temperate language addressing the argument rather than the person.

It's not so much that it's a divergent opinion, but the refusal to accept that they are deliberately distorting the truth and employing needless political language just to get a reaction. When you trap them in a corner, they just go off on a tangent, typically spewing hate and vitriol which again is just designed to get a reaction.

There's a world of difference between people arguing about sincerely held beliefs/opinions and someone just arguing to try to trigger someone.

I don't recall any examples of "hate and vitriol" from them, although a fair smattering of Anglo Saxon and French in reply.

As to "triggering" people, that's like the bar room brawler saying somebody made him throw a punch. We should be able to hear some provocative comment without our right arm swinging in reflex reaction. If an argument is wrong it should be possible to bring it down.

Moreover, there are genuine differences of opinion and perspective. Some here don't drive at all, others I guess drive far more than they cycle, some will sympathise "too much" with the motorists' values, and that wrankles. We'll never know the other side if we won't hear it.

Just keep it civil.

I don't agree. The problem with this sentiment is that you are failing to acknowledge the evolution of trolling.

A troll who is uncivil, vitriolic, etc. is a troll who breaks the rules and a troll who gets banned, i.e. a terrible troll. As I've posted before, the absolute best way to troll is to be persistently contrary, optimally by using the bullshit refutation principle, in a way that you know will get a rise, but while following site rules, so that people have no clear rule violation to attack on and some posters may even think you are a legitimate poster. The result is a situation in which there is in a discussion someone you _know_ is trolling (because they're so extremely against consensus not just every so often but _practically all of the time_) but because they're being "civil" they are somehow beyond reproach. Such an interpretation is overly simplistic.

Indeed. A parasite that kills its host is not a successful parasite

Tell that to the Xenomorph...

But when the whole MO is to provoke, you can't have a proper discussion because having a discussion is not the objective.

And this is it. I've wasted more time than I wished responding. The only way to deal with them is to ignore. If you can't ignore (which can be very difficult, as evinced by my inability to keep my trap shut), don't take their posts seriously - hold them up to ridicule (their posts are generally ridiculous). Laugh at them. Just do it within site rules.

There is absolutely no way that you can debate with them, they're playing to their own rule book for their own ends. Their motivation is not to enighten or be enlightened, to make friends, or even to sharpen their own debating skills. It is just to troll.

I'm not going to go looking for explicit examples, but it tends to be more between the lines and the choice of descriptions of other cyclists. It's similar to how BTBS used terms like 'noddy hat wearing idiot' but BTBS often had something interesting to say (and he often disagreed with lots of commenters).

Triggering words are used specifically to get a response and yes, it's down to the person reading it to whether they react or not, but it's classic troll behaviour to sprinkle charged words into discussions and de-rail them. Their arguments are often brought down at which point they just throw some other random crap into the discussion.

hawkinspeter wrote:

There's a world of difference between people arguing about sincerely held beliefs/opinions and someone just arguing to try to trigger someone.

I have to agree with you.

To call road.cc an echo chamber I feel is inaccurate; it lends weight to the idea that we can't tolerate disagreement or divergent perspectives. Most of us drive, have family members or close friends who aren't mad keen on cycling. Our views and perspectives vary.

While it can get heated, and if we're honest we are all vulnerable to being triggered and losing our cool at times, most are posting with reasonable motives. A minority are not. But that's life. Which reminds me, I saw this quote a little while ago and it has been on my mind ever since:

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it."

I have tried to discourse with them, one more then another and would much rather them not replied to anymore rather then the current specific replies that they are getting. However from replies recently, I stopped replying to one when they specifically started searching for cyclist deaths in Time trials to make a point (after several other heated arguments about the death of another cyclist including in front of the son who posted clarified information.)

The other started to use very incorrect and inflammatory language on cyclist actions and when called out on it, admitted if was for "humourous" effect which to me means they want to provoke a reaction. However they both have the other trolling knack of insinuating something in such a way without actually typing it so again, when called out on the real meaning, they can fall back on the age old "that is not what I typed / said / stated."

Unfortunately there are some on the "cyclists" side who can also be blinkered, set in their ways and / all abusive in the end. However I don't see the obvious trolling moves I see with these two. And there are others who will see more balanced views and even argue the other side and again you don't see them being fully antagonistic (apart from Political views). 

I've commented in the past that they do not break the rules of the site. That however does not mean they are here for anything but trolling and provoking response. I say this as someone who often has contrary views and is willing to air them and argue them fiercely, however their particularly brand of "debate" seemsto be indistinguishable from someone from the right wing fringe of the cabby lobby.

Whereas they are very careful around toeing the line around site rules, their victim blaming, disinformation and disingenuousness wears a little thin at times.

Although on other sites, they would have been subject to a ban for baiting.

And I for one am no fan of baiting.....

Not sure that is accurate enough. Plenty of patronising comments and soctwati went after mungecrundle in a rather distasteful way.

Thanks to Mr Patrono (hope I got that spelling right) I don't have to read their comments.

You are right about avoiding an echo chamber.