[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

[Captain Badger]

And I for one am no fan of

And I for one am no fan of baiting…..

[Hirsute]

Although on other sites, they

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

[Hirsute]

Not sure that is accurate

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.

[Nick T]

I can change, guys

I can change, guys

[Captain Badger]

I’ve commented in the past

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.

[AlsoSomniloquism]

I have tried to discourse

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). 

 

[hawkinspeter]

Sriracha 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.

[Chris Hayes]

You’re right.  I’d not really

You’re right.  I’d not really thought about it too much until a couple of weeks ago when I thought seriously about unsubscribing – not through a comment directed at me, but the general tone of some of the comment sections. 

I’ve always used my own name when registering on forums and making comments on threads – that way I’m less inclined to get into slanging matches or directing abuse at others! 

[Sriracha]

I always enjoy the squirrel
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.

[MoutonDeMontagne]

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

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 kind of agree with your last point here, which was why I raised the earlier comment about whether the site editorial team are effectively encouraging these types of article that attract the trolls? Education about corrrect road use is great, but is the NMOTD really a constructive and neccesary article, or is it click-bait, akin to a ’50 best motorsport crashes’ kind of thing. If people do feel vunerable and emotionally charged as a result of careless driving out on the roads, is it helpful to reinforce that with the ‘look, all drivers are lethal careless maniacs’ narrative? It almost feels like, by running such articles, they’re effectively accepting that the culture of the site is going to take a hit in return for more traffic. 

[MoutonDeMontagne]

TheBillder wrote:

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.

A voice of sense and reason, thank you! 

[MoutonDeMontagne]

Possibly the best cartoon to

Possibly the best cartoon to describe the internet I’ve seen in a while! 

[Tom_77]

It’s a problem that dates

It’s a problem that dates back at least as far as CB radio.

 

[AlsoSomniloquism]

You only have to look at the

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. 

[TheBillder]

I could not agree more with
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.

[Author]

Replies