-
A clarification has been posted on the Velorution website: http://www.velorution.biz/?p=1453
Your clarification still carries with it the same confusion. Your argument is such a fog that people can read much into it that may or may not be there. It is so a poorly structured that it makes me think you would be better leaving these kinds of debates to someone who has a better understanding of how to communicate simple politics.
Your updated and embolded point reads:
"When we refuse to raise standards (or prefer to brush the issue under the carpet of political correctness), we let down vulnerable people including Africans, Jews, Cockneys and South Asians who wish to cycle but are prevented by cultural mores of their ethnic group."
Who are the 'we' who are letting down the groups you list ? And in what way would the 'we' be refusing to raise standards ?
What evidence have you that the groups you list are prevented from cycling by their culture ?
You make the most rudimentary mistakes when looking at naked data (here, Japan and Denmark's 'civility' towards cyclists) - and confuse correlation with causation. Taking Japan, for example, have you ruled out every other cause for this civility ? Including the history of how cycling has evolved there, the way the legal system deals with cyclists, with drivers who injure or kill cyclists, the road system and any number of possible influences causing or simply adding to a compound influence that may cause the civility you so readily attribute to cultural integration ?
You claim a desire to "work together to make London safer and more pleasant to ride in"
(So, dear readers, please lay down your venomous pens, and let’s work together to make London safer and more pleasant to ride in.)
And what do you offer to this debate to make London a more pleasant place to ride, what fix do you offer up for discussion ? Send them home, back to Mugabe and the Taliban.
When you typed that did it have the ring of a workable and onging solution for you ?How would this work ? Would there be a hierarchy of law ? If someone from Africa cause a RTA - send them back to Africa, and if someone from Richmond or Camden causes a RTA, what then ?
I am sure in your stream of confused sentiment there may be a point, but if you think you have made that point you still have all your work in front of you.
What I think you have really done here is something we have all done in the past, ranted against something that has annoyed you, your attempt to pass it off as reasoned debate is not persuasive.
-
Mr Velorution thinks he's Mr Revolution, let him be with his delusions of grandeur.
We thought we were starting an intelligent debate; alas, we have been showered by emails of abuse and threatened boycots. Sad; one would have hoped that after five years of blogging, readers would have given us the benefit of the doubt.
lol
-
someone needs to swallow their pride
-
The standards of road behaviour in London is very low and it is a major drag to the quality of life of the people who cycle and it is the number one reason why a lot of people do not cycle.
that's bullshit ! the standards aren't low per se, the roads are just fucking busy ! U cannot expect anything else TBH.
British drivers are the most qualified in the world and in my experience the best roads and drivers are here in the uk.
Go cycle in Rome, Paris, New York ! Mental !how do u spell per se ? :)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latinphrases%28P%E2%80%93Z%29#P
you spelled it right
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28P%E2%80%93Z%29#P
you spelled it right
Oh do i get a Brucy Bonus ?
-
Your clarification still carries with it the same confusion. Your argument is such a fog that people can read much into it that may or may not be there. It is so a poorly structured that it makes me think you would be better leaving these kinds of debates to someone who has a better understanding of how to communicate simple politics.
Your updated and embolded point reads:
"When we refuse to raise standards (or prefer to brush the issue under the carpet of political correctness), we let down vulnerable people including Africans, Jews, Cockneys and South Asians who wish to cycle but are prevented by cultural mores of their ethnic group."
Who are the 'we' who are letting down the groups you list ? And in what way would the 'we' be refusing to raise standards ?
What evidence have you that the groups you list are prevented from cycling by their culture ?
You make the most rudimentary mistakes when looking at naked data (here, Japan and Denmark's 'civility' towards cyclists) - and confuse correlation with causation. Taking Japan, for example, have you ruled out every other cause for this civility ? Including the history of how cycling has evolved there, the way the legal system deals with cyclists, with drivers who injure or kill cyclists, the road system and any number of possible influences causing or simply adding to a compound influence that may cause the civility you so readily attribute to cultural integration ?
You claim a desire to "work together to make London safer and more pleasant to ride in"
(So, dear readers, please lay down your venomous pens, and let’s work together to make London safer and more pleasant to ride in.)
And what do you offer to this debate to make London a more pleasant place to ride, what fix do you offer up for discussion ? Send them home, back to Mugabe and the Taliban.
When you typed that did it have the ring of a workable and onging solution for you ?How would this work ? Would there be a hierarchy of law ? If someone from Africa cause a RTA - send them back to Africa, and if someone from Richmond or Camden causes a RTA, what then ?
I am sure in your stream of confused sentiment there may be a point, but if you think you have made that point you still have all your work in front of you.
What I think you have really done here is something we have all done in the past, ranted against something that has annoyed you, your attempt to pass it off as reasoned debate is not persuasive.
one of your best yet....applause!
-
Tynan, I respect you; you're a bit of a radical, and cerebral with it, but we (you and I) have the right to disagree. Yes, it is preferable to air views and argue to resolve them, or just accept the difference. BUT, if one can see that another's views are not just silly, but harmful to some (not me Tynan, I'm harder than that), then it is up to somebody (just about anybody), to do something about it. And I have.
We have to take responsibility as adults for what we do and what we say (much less what we publish). Anyone can say to me YOU'RE FAT!. Okay, fair do's, we can check that box. Or even , YOU'RE A FAT BLACK ........... Okay, that's where I'd think about my response, because my mother and father were married, so if the person were to call me a bastard, its technically incorrect. Tynan, unless you have been on the receiving end of racism, its difficult to describe it to someone else. Yes, maybe I could HTFU, but really, I think I'm plenty hardened already.
Velorution, there is an old saying, that is "Why don't you pick on someone you're own size"; well on this occasion, you haven't. Amsterdamize wrote to you, after I wrote to them. Velorution, in doing what you have done, and forcing a response by others, you haven't picked on someone your own size at all. You have picked on a set of people who stand against certain things. These people have supporters.
The forum members here are in the main, torn between the right to think and utter, and the dismay of the utterances of a quite tragic episode. I cannot say exactly what I think and what I like in public, in fact, nor can anyone else that I know. If you feel that you are the exception to that rule, only time will prove if you are right on that score.
-
Winston, I agree. Tynan was spot on with all he said.
Also, I'd like to say that the forensic examination of the statement by Vorution on his site, by the forum members here, is astonishing. Even those who uphold free speech, have microscopically analyzed and taken apart the content and meaning. I've never seen so many damned BSc's, MSc's and near-PhD's! Though its the sharp intellects I respect (not levels of education), as I'm suspicious of all research PhD's.
-
one of your best yet....applause!
Yep have to agree with that. I'd sit on the one for a few days Tynan. ready the pipe and good cup of tea and admire the work... just don't go following it up with a racist slur.. ;)
-
This is what AMSTERDAMIZE thought:
My answer (the blogger on Amsterdamize):
[INDENT]Hi Ashley,
I hadn’t checked Velorution for a while, thanks for drawing my attention to this particular post. It is certainly a dishonest and discriminatory piece, which I don’t support, particularly his generalization of how ‘ The Dutch recognise the problem they have and openly talk about it: dark-skinned immigrants do not cycle and that lowers the standards of the nation’.
1) he implies that only dark-skinned immigrants don’t cycle.
a) non dark-skinned immigrants do cycle?
b ) actually, regardless of some polarizing fear-mongering politicians, the Dutch government subsidizes cycle lessons for immigrants, specifically for women, as bicycle use is cost-efficient (important), it’s a social factor (very important) and liberating (and we know how much of a emancipating symbol the bicycle has been in early 20th century (before women won the right to vote). Why change something that works, right?
c) from my personal observations: rather the majority than the minority of (1st/2nd and 3rd generation) of immigrants (most naturalised) uses the bicycle.
2) even if his dribble was fact, not cycling doesn’t lower the standards. I can’t make any cheese out of this bit.
So, in conclusion, I don’t know what the hell he’s talking about. I’ve now decided to post this e-mail exchange on my blog, to let others know. And take him off my blogroll, of course.
best,
Marc
[/INDENT][Update]
I think I can put this issue to rest by adding Velorution’s commentary in my post/e-mail:
[INDENT]P.S. Below the fold are some of the emails I have received. I would like to single out one remark that is characteristic of the prevalent hypocrisy. Amsterdamize called my previous post “dishonest and discriminatory” and claims that “rather the majority than the minority of (1st/2nd and 3rd generation) of immigrants (most naturalised) uses the bicycle.” How come then, one has to look very hard among the hundreds of photographs he publishes, to see a dark face on a bike. Who is the racist now?
[/INDENT]Velorution, I’m the last one to see things in black and white, whether it regards people or things written down. I read your post twice, because the first time I wasn’t sure whether you were being ironic, sarcastic, or anything else. Maybe I missed a few things that would clear this thing up. Misconception is a rotten thing, certainly on the internet. Hence, I read it again.
There’s no wiggle room for misinterpretation. You are an ill-informed, generalizing, discriminatory and dishonest person. With this comment, I would add ‘delusional’ and ‘plain dumb’ to it, as well.
No, you got it right, I’m not even going to dignify this utter bullshit. -
[INDENT]
From Velorution:
P.S. Below the fold are some of the emails I have received. I would like to single out one remark that is characteristic of the prevalent hypocrisy. Amsterdamize called my previous post “dishonest and discriminatory” and claims that “rather the majority than the minority of (1st/2nd and 3rd generation) of immigrants (most naturalised) uses the bicycle.” How come then, one has to look very hard among the hundreds of photographs he publishes, to see a dark face on a bike. Who is the racist now?
[/INDENT]Velorution, I’m the last one to see things in black and white, whether it regards people or things written down. I read your post twice, because the first time I wasn’t sure whether you were being ironic, sarcastic, or anything else. Maybe I missed a few things that would clear this thing up. Misconception is a rotten thing, certainly on the internet. Hence, I read it again.
There’s no wiggle room for misinterpretation. You are an ill-informed, generalizing, discriminatory and dishonest person. With this comment, I would add ‘delusional’ and ‘plain dumb’ to it, as well.
No, you got it right, I’m not even going to dignify this utter bullshit.The irony, which is obviously totally lost on Andrea, is that he is an immigrant himself. A white one.
-
Amsterdamize: I can’t make any cheese out of this bit.
my favourite new saying
-
Couple of great posts from tynan - great disection of the latest velorution post and a thoughtful analysis of the limits of state intervention in free speech.
GA2G - I have to say that your anger is being channelled very well and I think in your place that I would be absolutely seething. I agree with tynan's views on whether this is something for the state to intervene in, as I think that Velorution will see a more immediate and painful result in their profit margins. If I ran an upmarket shop selling bicycles to rich Londoners, many of whom hold quite progressive political views, I would steer well clear of publishing nonsense like this on the internet. Especially in uncertain economic times.
I think it might have been better if Andrea's blog had concentrated on things which were a bit more within his realm of expertise.
-
This is from the Amsterdamized blog:
**[Update]
I think I can put this issue to rest by adding Velorution’s commentary in my post/e-mail:
[INDENT]From Velorution:
P.S. Below the fold are some of the emails I have received. I would like to single out one remark that is characteristic of the prevalent hypocrisy. Amsterdamize called my previous post “dishonest and discriminatory” and claims that “rather the majority than the minority of (1st/2nd and 3rd generation) of immigrants (most naturalised) uses the bicycle.” How come then, one has to look very hard among the hundreds of photographs he publishes, to see a dark face on a bike. Who is the racist now?
[/INDENT]From Amsterdamized:**
Velorution, I’m the last one to see things in black and white, whether it regards people or things written down. I read your post twice, because the first time I wasn’t sure whether you were being ironic, sarcastic, or anything else. Maybe I missed a few things that would clear this thing up. Misconception is a rotten thing, certainly on the internet. Hence, I read it again.
There’s no wiggle room for misinterpretation. You are an ill-informed, generalizing, discriminatory and dishonest person. With this comment, I would add ‘delusional’ and ‘plain dumb’ to it, as well.
No, you got it right, I’m not even going to dignify this utter bullshit.
None of the above are my own words.
-
GA2G - when I was new to this forum, I remember you talking me down with your inimitable humour from my anger, that was roused by a post effectively saying that someone looked like a bike thief because he was Irish. Without wanting to re-open that debate, I took exception to the comments for obvious reasons - and I take exception to the Velorution log for the same reasons. I remember saying at the time that, if the poster had said the guy looked like a thief because he was black, there would have - quite rightly - an uproar. And that's what we have now....
Good on you for reporting him. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility and velorution demonstrates none of that.
tynan
Dylan
the-smiling-buddha
deleted
GA2G
Greasy_Slag
Buffalo_Bill
rpm
BringMeMyFix
big_daddy_wayne
Momentum
villa-ru
Markyboy-
Post a reply
About
Umm... Velorution?
Posted by
@runcible_rakan
i'll not be shopping there, that's for sure.
even the clarification doesn't do it for me i'm afraid.
however, i'm delighted that it was posted in the first place (the original and the so-called clarification) because i firmly believe everone has the right to air their views. it lets me know who to avoid.