[MoutonDeMontagne]

I was browsing a series of other cycling based websites recently, and one question popped into my head when back here on road.cc. Namely, what is it that makes the comment sections here so aggressive, abraisive and generally unpleasent. Almost every article ends up with some form of slanging match, akin to a ‘you wana go pal’ shoving match in a pub underneath. Is it indicative of the types of demographics that tend to frequent the road, linked to the increasingly aggressive cars vs. bikes war of words in the press, debate provoking articles or what? Theres no room for humour, differences of opinions or anything seemingly. Often a simple jovial comment will result in a (Harry Enfield voice) “I think you’ll find that actually….’ 

In short, chill out everyone. Theres enough shite going on in the world without it spilling into cycling chat! 

Topic

[ktache]

There is not the sense of

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.

[Rich_cb]

Ironic.
Ironic.

[TheBillder]

I found the roundabout
I found the roundabout discussion troubling. Usually we have found ways to say “the cyclist could have done better” or “actually that wasn’t all that bad” or “I can see that being difficult for all”. Without rehashing the zillions of posts on that topic, I thought all parties were wrong and yet all deserved some sympathy. Those nuances were lost. We have become polarised just like American politics.

Why has this happened? I do think it’s recent and it is due to repeated postings with a pro-motorist, right-of-centre slant. That viewpoint has about 90% of the dead tree press and a good proportion of electronic media firmly on its side. This site is pretty much the only voice of the road cyclist and we do need to protect that. I am not in favour of the “safe spaces” idea that has arisen in universities. We should consider and hear the other side of the debate, and not remain in bubbles – despite temptation to use scripts to exclude some contributors, and confirmation from one of those prolific posters that they do the same.

But it is very difficult to stay calm that when some contributors take only one line, repeatedly and stridently. They never seem to comment on kit, or help those with technical questions, or offer encouragement. They just predictably pop up with at best, spin on behalf of the dangerous majority. LTN opposition, compulsory helmets, registration, insurance, all the topics calculated to push a lot of buttons. It is difficult not to see them as interlopers from Planet Car. As hawkinspeter says, there are trigger words. Hard to see a point being made or anyone being persuaded to question their ideas; easy to see a rise being encouraged.

I usually disagree with eburtthebike* on helmets, but eburt has other things to say, which I read and value. I do not see that very much from the two accounts that are causing such angst. I have tried very hard not to rise to the bait of their postings, and often failed. I have agreed with both, very rarely – but I’m always going to comment when I do, because that’s only fair.

So I challenge both – you know who you are. Take a month, build up a track record of positive posting. Show this community that you have help to offer but stay off your favourite controversies. Give opinions on cleats, wheel truing, Julian Alaphillipe, Hardknott vs the Bealach, etc. You may even find an appreciative audience. Otherwise I think you’ll find the oxygen of readership in short supply, whether by filters, or simply avoiding your posts.

*Just an example – someone who I’m sure will not mind my use of their name, who has trenchant views. I apologise if eburt is in any way affronted by this.

[David9694]

has Road.CC stopped beating

has Road.CC stopped beating its wife? 

smoking and cars are two things I feel strongly about – smoking continues, despite a litany of health risks, expense and scruffy doorways – the advantage seems quite tiny.  (I’m always surprised by the level of compliance there is with the indoor smoking ban.) 

With cars, at least there is a benefit to the user, but otherwise it’s a heap of collective disadvantages, which has now been around long enough on such a scale that no-one can see, or wants to see, that it’s a problem, or that things don’t have to be this way and it could be different.

Cycling is all advantages on a staggering exponential scale and the only disadvantages are punctures and SPDs that don’t unclip at the vital moment.  

So it really grinds my 10s gears to read on here, here, my safe space in which to say “aren’t cars /drivers terrible?” Things like “cars are great, more cars” and “you should get out the way of cars”, “drivers’ lives matter”, etc. 

[AlsoSomniloquism]

Yep, look at the geezer who

Yep, look at the geezer who crashed into the pedestrian, walked away and dumped his bike as well. 

[don simon fbpe]

Arseholes ride bikes too.

Arseholes ride bikes too.

[Captain Badger]

Is “group think” when more
Is “group think” when more than one person disagrees with you?
Asking for a friend….

[Rich_cb]

Political decisions about
Political decisions about cycling are fair enough but certain columnists seem to find a way to insert politics into just about any piece they write.

Yeah, I was just messing around in the account settings and realised I could do it, so did.

Apologies to all who have to rewrite their blocking scripts, I’ll change it back soon.

[Hirsute]

Have you changed your

Have you changed your username or am I needing a new prescription?

I don’t see how you can drop politics when a few of the articles are about political decisions on cycling. But I’d agree there can be too many polical points made.

[Rich_cb]

There is a significant
There is a significant element of ‘group think’ on this forum.

Challenge the group think and you get abuse and hostility.

It seems to me that personal abuse directed at people who have the ‘wrong’ opinions is tolerated by the moderators, this encourages routine use of abusive language by some posters.

Certain posters will regularly call others scum, vermin or Brex-tards (etymology of that isn’t exactly PC) but I’ve never seen them get so much as a warning.

As for our two accused trolls, SocratiCyclist is deliberately provocative and usually completely divorced from reality but at least remains civil.

I don’t really think Booj is a troll at all, he has a bizarre hatred of TT but otherwise seems no less contrary than a lot of other posters.

I’ve mentioned it before but if road.cc were interested in detoxifying the site then dropping the politics from their own articles would be a very good start.

[hawkinspeter]

I’m not going to go looking
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.

[Hirsute]

But when the whole MO is to

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

[Luca Patrono]

I don’t agree. The problem
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.

[check12]

Click bait titles and winding

Click bait titles and winding up readership with close passes and stoking it with anti cycling twitter screenshots = angry comments

in my opinion 

also Britney Spears 

[Sriracha]

hawkinspeter wrote:

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.

[Author]

Replies