Northwind

No, is the answer. Because (not for the first time) you’re taking different people’s opinions and squashing them all together and acting surprised that they’re inconsistent.

For effect. I’m not acting surprised, just illustrating the morass of opinions, sorry if you find that overly glib.

Northwind

You are having a laugh. His entire argument about enforced monogamy was relating to and inspired by that exact terrorist attack

Apologies I think I mis-read you. I assumed you were suggesting that Peterson was in some way complicit or responsible for inspiring the attacker.

Using obscure academic terms in an interview with a non-academic publication for mass consumption is either incredibly stupid, or a good way to cause confusion.

You say I’m choosing the least charitable way to look at it; not at all, I’m giving him credit where it’s due. I think it’s a low tactic but it’s effective.

Let me just see if I can get this straight…. (fake) Dr. Jordan Peterson is a pseudo intellectual charlatan and snake oil salesman who leads an army of alt-rights, incels, mgtows, racists, misogynists and neo-nazis by speaking in a deliberately confusing, rambling and incoherent manner and consciously chooses obscure academic terminology which he knows will gain controversy when they are accidentally misinterpreted by his critics on the left, while simultaneously criticizing and admonishing the groups which he apparently inspires.

Is that about right? If it is, it’s an impressive accomplishment.

Northwind

So his own unclear wording becomes a chance for him to dismiss his critics as ignorant, and to pretend that they’ve dismissed any value in monogamy outright. And he’s already gained attention which he wouldn’t have gained had he just explained himself coherently. (his supposed actual point being obvious, uncontroversial, and not really interesting enough to be worth broadcasting)

That would be the least charitable way to look at it, and unsurprising. Another way to look at it would that he’s using the correct nomenclature from whatever field of study he’s refering to. A perfect example of this would be James Damore’s use of the term “neurotic” and “neuroticism” regarding women in his memo to Google. Damore wrote a memo discussing the differences between men and women (higher trait neuroticism being one) and how emloyers should take this into consideration if they wish to improve STEM work environments and thus hire more women. People latched on to his use of the term “neuroticsim” as a pejorative attack on women and branded him a misogynist despite the fact that he was using the term correctly and in the context of a memo in which he was positing ideas to make it easier for women to work in STEM.

All of which is very cunning etc

Sorry, I thought he was stupid rambling incoherent etc, or a pseudo intellectual. Now he’s very cunning.

if it weren’t against the backdrop of an incel terrorist attack wouldn’t be at all bothersome.

I like how you made a completely throwaway reference to incel attacks and thus make an inference that it’s somehow relevant in any way. Put it like this, if incels are listening to Peterson then they are ignoring everything Peterson is saying to them and doing the absolute opposite. The complete diametrically opposite opposite of what he says. But I guess that’s also part of a cunning strategy.

binners

I think Corbyn is hopeless. But I think Peterson is dangerous. Very dangerous. And there seem to be some pretty deranged people who are using his words to try and put the advancements in modern society regarding sexual and racial equality into reverse.

You keep making the same noises and yet manage to say nothing….just broad allusions to “dangerous ideas” “bad people” “misogynists…racists” while proudly boasting that you’d rather stuff sand in your vagina than listen to Peterson.

Amazing.

Dezb

Have any females posted their thoughts?

I posted an article by Carol Horton, a female, a self declared liberal/lefty, whatever. It’s a well written piece that does a great job of articulating her thoughts on Peterson and the controversy surrounding him. I’d be amazed if any STW members, male or female could do a better job of framing the debate.

Here’s the link – http://quillette.com/2018/05/22/jordan-peterson-failure-left/

Cougar

I don’t know which of these statements is closer to the truth, though the net result is the same is it not?

Well, no I don’t think so. Binners is saying that JP knows that what he says will be used by racists and misogynists to justify their hatred of (insert whoever). Even if this were true (it’s not) Peterson is still not responsible for the way individuals will interpret his words.

On the other end you have “journalists” deliberately mischaracterizing him, his words and his work to stir the pot and get paid. On this note it’s worth listening to Peterson’s email exchange with a Guardian journalist over his use of the label “alt-right” do describe Peterson. It’s a perfect illustration of how journalists and publications simply don’t care about accurately representing him.

JP has lectured (he says) for almost 30 years about the evils of Nazism, totalitarianism and the far right. He’s admonished the far right multiple times publicly so it’s absolutely laughable to label him as far right, right wing, nazi sympathiser etc, so that won’t stick but instead people just use “alt-right” because it carries the all the same inferences but it’s much woolier and almost impossible to define. Again, note that Kanye West is now “alt right”.

One is a byproduct, the other is an intentional lie. That should at least inform you about the motivation. If two factions are stirring up controversy, animosity and racial tensions and one side is doing it deliberately and  the other is doing it by complete accident due to willful misinterpretation, who’s intentions are worse?

But if you’re a public speaker and what you’re saying is inadvertently being used by “misogynists and racists” to justify their nasty little attitudes, wouldn’t you perhaps want to adjust what you’re saying so that didn’t happen quite so much?

Again, he can’t control how people who want to misinterpret him will misinterpret him. All he can do is say what he believes. He’s been scathing about “misogynists and racists” …presumably the “misogynists and racists” just ignore those parts and skip to the little parts they like?

If these misogynists and racists really want leadership, or material that justifies their beliefs there’s plenty of inflammatory hatred out there.

binners

He knows full-well that his more inflammatory stuff is immediately seized on by misogynists and racists as justification for their attitude, and (in some cases violent) actions. He’s absolutely complicit in it

Nope. What he says is only “seized on” by clickbait authors who deliberately mis-represent it, strip it of any context, portray it as racist, sexist and misogynist then serve it to the likes of you so you can get frothy and upset about it.

And the only reason they do it? ker-****ing-ching!

It works well by the look of it.

Sigh.

No substantiation then.

Peterson: Three hour lecture about Dragons as a metaphor for chaos and dragon slaying as a metaphor for gaining control.

The Guardian: Crackpot pseudo intellectual and alt right incel leader Jordan Peterson claims that dragons are real and encourages followers to murder endangered Komodo Dragon species on remote Indonesian Island.

STW: Substantiate JP’s claims that dragons are real or I win the internet. PS you’re a nazi who beats his wife and everything you say is invalid because you can’t possibly know what Peterson actually means unless you have psychic powers. 

jimjam

obviously those who wish to attack and mis-characterise Peterson won’t want to read or know anything about it or him but I’ve pasted some of the article because a lot of it maps quite well on to this thread. Perhaps something might sink in by osmosis.

ransos

you fanboys

Sigh.

onewheelgood

which tells us precisely nothing about his ideas or their validity,

No you could listen to his ideas but that would take time out of your busy schedule fighting injustice and identifying this week’s Hitler.

Here’s a great article on Peterson and the failure of the left. It’s written by  “gasp” a woman (so presumably not a misogynist)  and someone who describes herself as having a “life-long identification with the social democratic (or, in U.S. terms, left-liberal) side of the political spectrum”. Obviously those who wish to attack and mis-characterise Peterson won’t want to read or know anything about it or him but I’ve pasted some of the article because a lot of it maps quite well on to this thread. Perhaps something might sink in by osmosis.

I’d never heard of Jordan Peterson until a short time ago. In my case, the first signal of his arrival on the cultural scene was a friend’s series of Facebook posts vividly denouncing him as a reactionary cult-like leader…..Soon, I found myself going down the Peterson rabbit-hole with countless others. I listened to several of his lectures on reinterpreting Bible stories as archetypical myths. Contradicting my friend’s warnings of hate-filled right-wing propaganda, I found Peterson’s discussions intellectually engaging, personally meaningful, and a refreshing departure from the standard discourse on such issues.

Although my newfound interest in Peterson might seem to put me in good company this isn’t the case at all. On the contrary, it puts me into a pretty isolated, alienated, and uncomfortable position. The reason for this is simple: I’ve always identified strongly with the left-leaning side of the political and cultural spectrum.

The hyperbolic uniformity of the leftist attack on Peterson is emblematic of the growing tendency to reduce left-of-center thought to the status of a rigidly simplistic ideology. Increasingly, what passes for progressive political thought today offers little more than a scripted set of weaponized hashtags (you must be pro- #metoo and anti-patriarchy, no further thought required). This narrowing of our public discourse is disturbing, and worrisome on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels.

First, it’s unconvincing to everyone who’s not some sort of true believer or faithful follower (or, more cynically, a journalist looking to please an editor demanding yet another Peterson hit piece). No doubt, I’m not the only person who’s wondered what all the fuss is about, decided to take the time to listen to one of Peterson’s YouTube lectures, and come away feeling that the Left’s commentariat is trying to sell me a fake bill of goods. The gap between Peterson’s obvious intelligence and the Left’s scathing denunciation of him as an alt-right idiot is simply too large for many of us to ignore.

the Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work and/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it.

I realize that Peterson has at times said things that I disagree with and might even find offensive. But I’m much more concerned with—and disgusted by—the endless stream of tendentious and dishonest articles from leftists critics that grab onto such statements and blow them out of proportion, while aggressively erasing everything else the man has ever said or done from the record.

I find it even more aggravating that such distortion is typically coupled with a predictable string of gratuitous insults (Peterson is a misogynist, a racist, a transphobe, and so on).

Rather then vilifying Peterson, I’d love to see left-of-center writers, thinkers, and political commentators engage with his ideas in challenging, but also thoughtful and respectful ways.

Sounds eerily familiar.

binners

I’d imagine…

Yep.

binners

A large chunk of his target audience seem like the types who’d don long leather trench coats and go postal with an array of stockpiled firearms given half the chance.

Still…. it gets them out of their bedrooms at their mums house, and into the fresh air, so its not all bad

The comment you make when you have absolutely nothing valid to say by way of critique so instead you create a lazy caricature of group you perceive to be ideologically opposed to you. Every time you post you’re just winking to your little clique, and you’ve made it abundantly clear you’ve not listened to anything the man has said, so why comment? It makes you look stupid.

john

Aaaanyway, what I find impressive about JP is the way he gets his fans to give him money via his website, I think just for quicker access to his youtube clips (of which there does not appear to be much of a shortage). There’s something about a multimillionaire getting the poor saps who buy this bollocks to send him their cash that makes it begin to look a bit, erm, culty?

Are you similarly impressed by everyone else on patreon? Is it “culty” when people support artists and writers and musicians who’s work they enjoy in the same manner? People (I’m not one of them) support Dr. Peterson via patreon because they value his work. It’s extremely common and no doubt will be the model for digital content in the future and it’s necessary because Google/Youtube are so far up their own arses that they instantly flag/demonistise everything Peterson put’s out, as well asc losing his youtube channel, locking him out and unsubscribing tens of thousands of his subscribers – issues his detractors don’t have to contend with.

Malvern Rider

I believe it to be irresponsible for anyone (most of all public figures who very much have the ‘ears’ of the killers’s demographic) to make grandiose flat statements about the cause (and cure) of the Toronto killings/killer without having all of the available evidence on the table.

If no one comments  on anything without knowing the full facts of everything then there’s nothing to say. Peterson can probably feel justified in commenting because he’s speaking in general terms, not specific ones. Anyone who listens to him speak would know that, but those who want to sling mud would rather gouge out their eyes with spoons than listen to him so you have a circular argument / stalemate.

If according to you, “he has the ear of the killer’s demographic” wouldn’t it be pertinent to comment? Peterson is constantly putting out advice that is geared towards people (not just men) reordering or making sense of their lives. Seems as though he has a responsibility to comment and is damned for commenting.

Malvern Rider

Geetee, maybe you missed it, but I did respond to you. Here it is again:

Do you have any clear evidence/links to Minassian’s character/motivation/background that we could possibly use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s flat assertion about the reason/s for his crime?

Is that the 6th time you’ve asked the same question? It’s obvious that you don’t want an answer, you want Geetee to reply in a way that allows you to ascribe the worst possible meaning to what he says and post baseless rambling slanderous fear mongering shit like this…..

Binners, think 1950s. Back when hyper-masculinity was a thing, and ‘dorks’ would get sand kicked in their face or join ultra-misogynistic online cults. Men and women knew their place. Sluts were shamed. Marital rape didnt happen and so was not a thing. And there was equality of opportunity for women to be housewives. Science. No homo. Psychiatry ruled the waves.

…so you can re-affirm in you’re own mind how “right” you are and protect your little echo chamber. It’s very brave.

I gave you an obvious and simple explanation but you saw fit to criticise me for “acting as a self appointed translator” and post a gif of Bill Murray. You wanted an interpretation, you got one, but then only a psychic could do that. And yet you insist on an answer from Geetee.

Instead of wasting your time here and sullying yourself with ultra-misogynist anti-social media-addicts, self-appointed translators oh and Nazis (jesus wept you cretinous ****s) why don’t you email or tweet Nellie Bowles, the author of laughable hit piece on Dr. Jordan Peterson you are constantly referencing. She’d probably be only too happy to help since she just barely stopped short of calling Peterson an evil wizard or sith lord.

Malvern Rider

As yet I can’t find anything so far about Peterson’s claim that he was ‘angry at God’ he did leave a Facebook message to the effect that he was taking ‘revenge’ on humans,

He’s not saying the killer was literally angry at God, or that his killing was religiously motivated in any way.  He’s saying that the killer was in such a malevolent nihilistic state that he wants to punish the world/society/god for hurting him. The worst pain you can inflict on society is to punish the innocent, or to kill innocence. Peterson is likely refering to Cain murdering Abel (God’s favorite) in order to spite god.

on sexually ‘successful’ stereotypes whom he refers to as ‘Chads and Staceys’ (might those be what JP refers to as ‘archetypes’?)

Chads and Stacey’s I believe is a reference to typical popular atheltic guys and good looking, popular girls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_(slang)

dissonance

I am not sure that really clarifies things. How exactly would marriage solve the issue of the young single male misogynist?

In a nutshell stable long term relationships are better for a child’s development and illustrate the value and utility of a loving long term monogamous relationship. The absence of a father can negatively impact a boy’s development and drive them to seek alternative male role models, say from media.

In a society where people value casual sex over stable relationships they will become focused on the superficiality ie physical appearance or status. The upshot being that men who have one or both can command the attention of a disproportionate amount of women, and the men without either will become disenfranchised with, or withdrawn from society.

JP responds by claiming that ‘enforced monogamy’ is the solution to such violence? And that such young men are ‘angry at God’?

He means enforced by cultural norms, in other words marriage. Not forced.

No, sorry. I listened to the songs above and to me that sounds like little more than a tribute band riffing.

Whats the next step?

Move out of the ghetto?

Well, I posted my view on the subject over an hour ago. You chose to ignore that.

You’ve still not responded to my point.

@rustyspanner – Is it raining where you are? Give me a break.

White Privilege is interesting.

Historical and Economic Privilege would possibly be a more accurate and inclusive description, as it’s obviously not exclusive to skin colour.

What do you think?

I think that White Privilege is a grossly simplistic term being applied to a myriad of complicated socio economic issues. Adding “white” to it helps no one. Historic or Economic privilege is probably a better definition of what some people are trying to describe as “white privilege” but there are still so many caveats and exceptions as to render it almost meaningless.

That’s not to say that racism and discrimination aren’t real, but to paint an entire society as being either inherently racist or subconsciously racist is wrong.

RustySpanner

Do you accept that historical and economic privilege exists?

You’re using the word “privilege” as a synonym for majority.

Jimjam, any chance of a response to any of my points?

Oh sorry if I can’t reply immediately. Could you answer any of these points? If my grandfather was black but I look white, or light skinned do I have white privilege? If my grandfather was Greek, and I have causcasian features but darker skin am I the victim of white privilege? If I’m openly, flamboyantly gay and white do I enjoy white privilege? If I’m white and I identify as black am I the victim of white privilege or the beneficiary? If I’m Bulgarian do I enjoy white privilege in the UK? Irish traveller? Polish?

If a child is born to dirt poor alcoholic, drug addicted benefit scrounging dole scum who happen to be white, then that child enjoys white privilege don’t they?

Please be quick about – wink emoji.

If it’s not a problem in China or Japan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia (insert wherever) then why not?

Do you need pictures?

No I don’t need pictures, I need you to explain why it doesn’t exist in Japan. Do they have Japanese privilege? Do Pakistanis have Pakistani privilege in Pakistan? Do Indians have Indian privilege in India or is it something that only occurs in “white countries”?

But the central part is if you want to deny there is white privilege in the UK/US/Europe/Australasia be up front and say that.

If you provide a definition of it, and explain the limitations of it then there’d be something to confirm or deny. If my grandfather was black but I look white, or light skinned do I have white privilege? If my grandfather was Greek, and I have causcasian features but darker skin am I the victim of white privilege? If I’m openly, flamboyantly gay and white do I enjoy white privilege? If I’m white and I identify as black am I the victim of white privilege or the beneficiary? If I’m Bulgarian do I enjoy white privilege in the UK? Irish traveller? Polish?

mikewsmith

So the entire premise is that it must be world wide in order to be so?

If it’s not a problem in China or Japan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia (insert wherever) then why not?

It certainly exists in western countries,and the majority of the developed world. Is there White privilege in the UK?

By Western Countries I presume you mean Western Europe and the U.S.A? Why are they so racist? As for whether it exists in the UK, well I don’t live in the UK.

As for does it travel? it was very apparent in Indonesia, Singapore while I was there

Presumably you applied for and got jobs where there were more qualified locals, and you noticed the political and legal structures where populated by White people as opposed to locals? Or were you just treated well because you were a tourist?

mikesmith

He appeals to men = he must hate women. – Or does he appeal to men by telling them it’s not their fault – blame somebody else?

And yet, that’s not what he does. Probably Peterson’s most famous phrase is “Tidy your room” ie sort your own life out before you go looking to blame other people for your problems.

Says men and women are different = Women are inferior. – Then tries to make leaps to other conclusions

Such as?

Says white privilege is a myth = Hates blacks. – Denying something that exists? Dangerous, he then chooses how provocative he wants to be with it

Tell me, does your white privilege travel with you? Do you enjoy white privilege in Asia, or the middle east, or Africa? If not why not?

Hates authoritarianism = Fascist leanings. – Nope just falls into the deeply unpleasant right to behave badly and disrespectfully then claim free speach

Cite deep and unpleasant bad behaviour?

Classic liberal = Alt Right. – panders to the alt right, PC Gawn MAD, better when we could just call people racist things and get away with it.

Who are the Alt right? Who’s stopping you from calling everyone you want a racist? That’s exactly what you’re doing by throwing around the alt right tag for everyone and anyone who doesn’t buy into your political opinion. Hilarious that you are bemoaning the good old days when you could call everyone a racist whilst calling everyone a racist.

Believes in science = Biological determinist. – Science with a religious background? Sounds confused

Not really, but then you’d have to listen to him, not 10 minute edits designed to take his views out of context.

People give him money = Monster.- More taking a look at the people paying him money and how he is monetising his ideas.

Hmmmmm must be a young white, angry alt right conspiracy.

RustySpanner

You’ve exemplified my points exactly.

Thank you.

You don’t have a point. You expressed your opinion devoid of facts, context, reference or supporting argument. You could have saved yourself some time and typed “I don’t like him”.

I’m happy to debate the issue if you’re prepared to behave in a reasonable manner.

So criticizing the empty fear mongering and complete lack of any reference or evidence  or context in your post constitutes behaving in an unreasonable manner? You’ve not posted anything worthy of debate. Your opinion / My opinion, equally valid, equally worthless.

Rustyspanner

Eh?

I’d never heard of him before seeing him mentioned on here.

I’m listening to what he says – he seem to use some valid points/universal truths to justify a huge leap to unpleasant and illogical conclusions.

I’ve spent a while researching what he says he actually believes. It’s not very nice.

His arguments rely on logical fallacies and his own irrational belief and prejudice.

He refuses to respect the views of others yet when others disrespect his views, uses that as the cornerstone of his arguments against them.

He knows what he’s doing and appears to attract those desperate to blame others for their own failings – ironic when his main argument is the exact opposite.

I don’t hate him, he’s a product of an intellectual vacuum and the inability of the left to address their own failings.

He’s dangerous in the same way that all hate mongers are dangerous.

The failure of the mainstream media to challenge him every time he opens his mouth is a disgrace.

Wow an entire post of empty hyperbolic fear mongering, shit stirring, and reactionary crap based on nothing but your own opinion.

Sad Irony trackworld. The same five or six posters screaming, desperate to spread lies about Peterson every time he gets mentioned on this forum – a forum which is populated mostly by men, a huge number of whom suffer from depression and where every other week a regular poster will adopt a pseudonym to open up about their depression, failed marriage, suicidal thoughts, miserable at work, how their life is meaningless etc etc etc.

It goes without saying the people who so desperately want to trash Peterson have perfect lives and they have everything figured out but it’s strange that they would be so vehemently against an author and psychologist because he’s popular with men struggling to make sense of the world. Almost as if they haven’t figured out that trashing Peterson is an industry these days and they are the target market. Perhaps they still believe that Guardian and Channel4 are still reputable, impartial news outlets and not purveyors of trash assassination pieces on anyone who challenges leftist orthodoxy .

Despite literally thousands of hours of Peterson on youtube people want to categorise him by a few out of context quotes or by his audience. He only appeals young angry white men. Oh well he’s clearly evil. Strange that people who are no doubt against racism, sexism and ageism want to attack Peterson’s audience with ageism, racism and sexism. A lot of little Cathy Newmans on STW as usual…

He appeals to men = he must hate women.

Says men and women are different = Women are inferior.

Deconstructs biblical and mythological archetypes = Christian fundamentalist.

Says white privilege is a myth = Hates blacks.

Hates authoritarianism = Fascist leanings.

Classic liberal = Alt Right.

Believes in science = Biological determinist.

People give him money = Monster.

Judging by the roll call thread there are obviously far more lurkers than posters, and while a vocal few try their best to gang up on, and shout down anything that threatens the sanctity of their little safe space, there are no doubt plenty of rational, normal, people who would enjoy Peterson’s work and perhaps benefit from some it. Too bad it’s impossible to discuss any of it at all because the leftist echo chamber culture that dominates STW.

I see Kanye West is Alt-Right now too 🤣

NJEE20

And they’re both almighty bell ends.

Having lashed out at my fair share of drivers I have to play devils advocate for the cyclist for just a second. When someone does something wrong, say commits a crime and goes to court, we take mitigating factors into consideration. It’s not unreasonable to assume that the cyclist regularly cycles that route and gets bullied at that pinch point or another or many others as I have experienced this and I’m sure plenty of others have too.

The driver on the other hand is probably taking liberties and is in no danger. Despite being in a 1.5 ton steel box he/she continues to hold their ground and tries to push the cyclist out of the way at least once iirc.

Neither party is covering themselves in glory here and the optics of it look worse for “cyclists” but there’s probably more going on.

mattoutabout

I’m probably going to be controversial here…

…I think some of the WW2 epics should be remade. Lots of the Alastair McLean films, Dirty Dozen, A Bridge too Far, Kelly’s Heroes (gasp!)…

No not at all. Some classics still hold up but many could be improved upon, since they are based on historic events there’s no “definitive” film. Dirty Dozen could definitley be remade as well (caveat that Hollywood sucks). I had high hopes for Inglorious Basterds way back when the original draft was essentially a grouping of old Hollywood action heroes, eg a WW2 version of the Expendables directed by Tarantino, with a better cast.

Kellys Heroes though, not so much. It was of it’s time and in my opinion the years have not been kind to it. I think modern audiences understanding of WW2 and portrayal in film would make Kellys Heroes if not irrelevant, at least badly out of step.

crazyjenkins

@ JimJam, Yeah I did, trying to balance and educate and all that! Also, stirred up a few of the more “precious car” posters which was also funny!

Well, at least you tried. I skimmed the comments and it was almost like every comment was written by satirical cyclists trying to embody the most stereotypically stupid and hateful driver memes imaginable.

Hello. Ireland here. Definitely Europe, just with worse weather. Hope you enjoy your freedom. Sorry to hear you’re all racists now.

How dare you start a thread about cars and not global warming, socialism, eco-friendly hobbies, how to be a better beta cuck etc. Flagellate yourself with a willow rod grown from renewable sources until you cry.

Back on topic – what amuses me most is those drivers who get upset because you made them wait but then have plenty of time to stop and argue with you. Idiots.

And they fail to get riled up when they stuck behind 20 tons of “road tax” exempt tractor and trailer at 15mph. That’s different though of course.

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>crazyjenkins01
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

No mate, don’t have prime or whatever needed to watch it!

</div>

I watched the first season, it diverges from the comics quite a bit but somehow has a feel that’s not a million miles off. Not bad, but not essential viewing.

l33t.

nickewen

* I say commute but I’ve pretty much given up on riding to work as I just can’t be arsed with the aggro. Far too many altercations with other road users to the point where I was either going to get locked up or knocked out. Probably the latter. I can’t seem to back down to being bullied on the road

I took to using a route through parks and towpaths that was miles longer to avoid altercations and aggro. I can’t remember the exact distances now but it was worth the extra 20-25 minutes each way for peace of mind and lower stress levels. Obviously not everyone can do that though.

Reading those comments is a window into how some drivers think. “If he’s have done that to my car I would have…blah blah”. No wonder riding on the roads is often such a horrible experience.

Did you watch the Amazon series?

@crazyjenkins01

Pretty reasonable comments (as usual) on here. As I stated in the comments a few times, like a few have said here, without seeing the build up it’s impossible to know who is at fault.

Did you actually weigh in on the Facebook comments?

Did you have a light on your bike Dezb?

you can generally guess which brands

Yep always bloody people in Fords, Vauxhall’s and Citroen’s

No no…try again.

I saw this a few days ago and thought about posting it but figured it had probably been done already. A slightly more descriptive thread title wouldn’t hurt though.

theotherjonv

Question – I’ve had this happen to me many times, my road is actually just like this. The comments say while he technically had the clear path, she’d started her move overtaking several cars and therefore should be allowed to complete it. I’m more of the opinion that you shouldn’t start the move if you can’t complete it without baulking the other user, and if it had been a car coming up to the pinch point with ‘right of way’ she’d have stopped and waited. But because it’s a bike they just carry on (and faced with an idiot in 1.5 tonnes of metal, i usually give way – because (dare i say it – much like learning to behave around dogs) i shouldn’t have to but there’s no comfort as you lie on the ground injured thinking ‘well technically I was in the right there’).

Yeah in my experience many drivers will simply accelerate to close the gap if there’s a cyclist coming, assuming they see you. The speed difference of a car , or ability to accelerate means they’ll often take that liberty. Hard to say without seeing the preceding manouvers but my guess would be the cyclist was close to the parked cars, the red car closed in and tried to accelerate past the obstruction assuming the cyclist would move and boyo on the bike blew a fuse because it happens to him all the time.

Plenty of drivers (you can generally guess which brands) assume ROW and will shoot the gap even when I’m in a car….funny it never happens when I’m driving my old pickup. 🤔 🤔