My theory is that it’s because people who are into it must be really into it, but people who aren’t into it are very good at ignoring the fact that it’s titled like that or that there might be one or two throwaway lines implying it (especially when it’s “step”). So there’s an incentive for uploaders to title things like that and for creators to add a little nod in the video towards it (without adding too much incest roleplay) because it draws in a large audience and actively turns away very few.

For the non-Americans in the audience, what is White Claws?

I can’t imagine buying a porn game on Steam. And even if I did, incest holds no interest to me.

Even so, I absolutely fucking hate this crap. Payment processors are killing off content despite the producers and consumers of the content being completely fine with it. This should be a Net Neutrality issue. But I’m not seeing anywhere near the same outrage over it that there was over ISPs doing the exact same thing.

Maybe she’s just an urbanist? [email protected]

Do they? Most cyclists I know do at least a bit of running.

Swimming though…even triathletes think swimmers are nuts.

Happy cake day, frend!

Splitting lanes is not legal in the vast majority of the United States but idk where you’re from

Where I am it’s explicitly allowed for motorbikes (at a maximum speed of 30 km/h), thanks to a relatively recent law change. Pushbikes are a different story. There’s no law explicitly allowing it, and this has led to some people (even people in positions of perceived authority, such as the social media team of the Department of Transport and Main Roads) to suggest that it’s not legal for bikes. But the reality is that it is legal, as a necessary side-effect of the fact that cars are allowed to overtake bikes without leaving the same lane. Basically, bikes are allowed to share a lane with another vehicle, and this has the effect of also allowing a bike to come up through congested traffic.

It’s very very rare for me to see a car blow through a red light outright

I find this rather hard to believe. First, remember that an amber light does not mean “be careful” or “get ready, you might have to stop soon”. It means stop right now, if it’s safe. How often have you seen drivers actually do that? I’ve had so many times where, as a driver, I saw the amber and found myself in that awkward position where I didn’t know whether it was appropriate to keep going or to stop, and eventually decided to go through; a situation where it is obviously going to be the case that anyone behind me should stop, because I was on the borderline, so anyone behind me must be well over the other side of the line. And yet, so many times not only has the car behind me gone through, the car behind them did too. And that’s before we even get into the daily cases where they don’t even start to enter the intersection until after it has turned red. I’ve got a mate who rides a motorbike and posts helmet-cam footage on Facebook at least weekly, and every one of his compilations includes at least one case of a driver who runs a fully red light.

For cyclists, recall that there are some places in your own country that explicitly allow cyclists to go through a red light if it’s safe. Not everywhere does (nowhere in Australia, to my knowledge), but those places that allow it do it for a reason. Evidence shows that it makes cyclists safer. Not all lawbreaking is equal, and the evidence pretty clearly tells us that when cyclists break the law, it tends to be for far better reasons than the reasons drivers break the law, even though the rate of lawbreaking is the same.

They’re motorized vehicles when its convenient to them and pedestrians when its not

Almost like…they’re neither? What you describe here is perfectly legal.

They split lanes

Legal

blow through red lights

Imagine thinking cars don’t 🤣

and they loooooove to go out in big groups

Not remotely against the rules

and take over the road

Please define. Because as someone who has spent many hours in a car, I’ve been prevented from going at the speed I would like to go by other cars far more than bikes. And my life has been put in danger by cars, not by bikes.

The simple fact is that data tells us cyclists and drivers break the law at roughly the same rate at worst. (Incidentally, one study from a place with better infrastructure shows that when good infrastructure is in place, cyclists break the law considerably less often than drivers.) Studies also show that cyclists break the law to keep themselves safe (this has been backed up by multiple studies). When drivers break the law, it’s because they think it’s more convenient not to bother.

The simple fact is that though @[email protected] claims it’s cyclists being “dictators” and you claim they “take over the road”, the reality is quite the reverse. When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. And no demographic in our society (excluding socioeconomic and racial discussions) is more privileged than drivers.

I can’t speak for horses. I’ve only once in my life encountered people on horses while on a bike. It’s an exceedingly unusual scenario.

I can tell you that, as a matter of fact (not anecdote), drivers and cyclists break the law at roughly the same rate. But that in crashes between cars and bikes, the car is the responsible party in 80% of cases. And that studies have established that when cyclists break the law, it is overwhelmingly done in the interest of their own safety, while drivers break the law in the interest of perceived convenience.

I only realised after writing the above that that you mentioned “trails”. Sounds like you’re talking about mountain biking. I can’t speak to that, I’m almost exclusively a roadie, using the bike either as a means of transport or for exercise/training on the road. Saying “you” doesn’t really work here. The amount of overlap between mountain bikers and road bikers is surprisingly small.

Yes. Cars are the bullies and the dictators. But as the famous saying goes, “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”. Drivers like @[email protected] are pretending that cyclists are the ones being “dictators”, merely for existing, because they perceive that existence as a personal slight against them. Drivers feel entitled, and when that entitlement faces even the slightest pushback, they accuse the others of being dictators.

Would you like to try answering the questions?

I’m still waiting for an answer from @[email protected].

To be clear, at the time I made that comment, every top-level response in this thread had precisely one downvote, apart from two. One had many downvotes (“Most of them”), obviously just not very constructive. The other was this one. It’s obviously the result of some troll.

Maybe, but I’d say if they don’t know Tank Man, seeing it in this context without further explanation is still unhelpful. Because they’re likely to think it’s a photo taken in America today.

Huh, fair enough.

Direct link to the actual toot source.

The second image is a bit on the nose IMO. The comparison was clear enough from the original. And yeah maybe some people need it pointed out to them, but I suspect those people are also the ones who will reject the idea regardless.

They’re saying that cars are bigger and stronger than bikes, which makes them able to bully cars, which makes them feel entitled to do so. Because they then feel entitled to the road, they start calling cyclists “dictators” when they are merely using the road.

It’s a shockingly accurate description of behaviour that cyclists face on a daily basis, with drivers threatening their lives for no reason more than that the drivers feel entitled to do so.

Please explain exactly what you mean by “full blown road dictators”, and clearly detail how it is different from “use the road in a completely legal manner in ways trying to keep yourself and others from getting run over by the many car drivers with a sense of entitlement to the road”.

Yeah seriously. It’s pretty severely missed the point of this thread.

Ironic that it looks like someone came through and downvotes every answer in this thread other than this one, considering. It’d be pretty great if the mods banned whoever that was.

Oh damn. I came here to answer this too, but was definitely not expecting someone else already to have said it.

I do HEMA, which has a healthy overlap with the SCA, but from what I’ve heard, the SCA has a pretty rigid structure and hierarchy with ranks and titles. I’ve heard about people winning bouts in SCA fencing against someone who is supposedly ranked higher than them, and getting shunned because of it. That’s not healthy.

Huh? How? There’s no leadership structure to it to provide that cultish vibe, it’s mostly just individuals are small groups of friends doing their thing together.