For the record, this is about preventing accidents, not “terrorism.” (If nothing else, you can tell by the fact that the other sides of the pedestrian platform aren’t protected.)
I’m pretty far out on the radical fringe, but this title is too sensationalized even for me. Tone it down next time, please.
We need to start using differently terminology. While injury and deaths prevented by such an island may not rise to the level of “terrorism”, they’re no “accident”. When it’s reckless endangerment, that’s not accidental.
I’m pretty far out on the radical fringe, but this title is too sensationalized even for me.
Usually this is just an indicator that you aren’t actually on the radical fringe. Not trying to contradict your point or anything, but this is a sort of overton window-shifting rhetorical tactic that gets on my nerves because it actually works against a movement. Even if you didn’t realize you were doing it.
Regarding the opinion on terror rhetoric though, I do think it’s a fine strategy to call what cars do to our street like terrorism. It’s usually not definitional political terrorism (Usually), but the situation we have today required political choices which have resulted in actual terror on our streets. It’s a bold choice of words, and sometimes you have to be bold to hammer home a point.
And on that count… It should be “crash”, not “accident”. “Accident” partially aliviates blame and suggests an inevitability.
And on that count… It should be “crash”, not “accident”. “Accident” partially aliviates blame and suggests an inevitability.
I often make that point myself, but in this particular instance I chose “accident” deliberately in order to emphasize the lack of malicious intent.
Anyway, it can be a fine line between shifting the Overton Window and destroying your credibility, and IMO this was just on the wrong side of it. I’m not unsympathetic to the strategy of hyperbolic rhetoric you’re talking about (which is why you’ll notice I didn’t remove the post or demand OP actually change the title); I’m just trying to dial it back a tad. Besides, IMO we shouldn’t cheapen the word “terrorism” because then it loses its impact when we use it to describe when drivers actually do engage in violence against cyclists/pedestrians deliberately.
I think the problem here is that terror and terrorism are quite different things. Saying car terrorism implies the intention is to cause mass terror. You can’t really accidentally or unknowingly commit a terrorism. Call cars death machines or a scourge, but calling them terrorists seems inaccurate, and maybe more importantly, not useful. It seems to shift the blame from the system that leads to car dominance towards individual drivers as terrorists.
For the record, this is about preventing accidents, not “terrorism.” (If nothing else, you can tell by the fact that the other sides of the pedestrian platform aren’t protected.)
I’m pretty far out on the radical fringe, but this title is too sensationalized even for me. Tone it down next time, please.
The correct way to prevent car based terror of pedestrians was invented in ireland a century ago. I think there’s a drink named after it.
That or random anti vehicle mines.
We need to start using differently terminology. While injury and deaths prevented by such an island may not rise to the level of “terrorism”, they’re no “accident”. When it’s reckless endangerment, that’s not accidental.
Usually this is just an indicator that you aren’t actually on the radical fringe. Not trying to contradict your point or anything, but this is a sort of overton window-shifting rhetorical tactic that gets on my nerves because it actually works against a movement. Even if you didn’t realize you were doing it.
Regarding the opinion on terror rhetoric though, I do think it’s a fine strategy to call what cars do to our street like terrorism. It’s usually not definitional political terrorism (Usually), but the situation we have today required political choices which have resulted in actual terror on our streets. It’s a bold choice of words, and sometimes you have to be bold to hammer home a point.
And on that count… It should be “crash”, not “accident”. “Accident” partially aliviates blame and suggests an inevitability.
Alright, back into my pedantist cage.
Not pedantic. Matters. Thank you.
I often make that point myself, but in this particular instance I chose “accident” deliberately in order to emphasize the lack of malicious intent.
Anyway, it can be a fine line between shifting the Overton Window and destroying your credibility, and IMO this was just on the wrong side of it. I’m not unsympathetic to the strategy of hyperbolic rhetoric you’re talking about (which is why you’ll notice I didn’t remove the post or demand OP actually change the title); I’m just trying to dial it back a tad. Besides, IMO we shouldn’t cheapen the word “terrorism” because then it loses its impact when we use it to describe when drivers actually do engage in violence against cyclists/pedestrians deliberately.
I think the problem here is that terror and terrorism are quite different things. Saying car terrorism implies the intention is to cause mass terror. You can’t really accidentally or unknowingly commit a terrorism. Call cars death machines or a scourge, but calling them terrorists seems inaccurate, and maybe more importantly, not useful. It seems to shift the blame from the system that leads to car dominance towards individual drivers as terrorists.