8.02.2014

SHARE THE ROAD (they scream)

Friends,

Here's a fun fact about me: I've never been very good at riding a bike. There have been three distinct phases of my life in which riding a bike has been relevant, and each contains its own unpleasant memory.

Elementary school years, Elm Grove neighborhood in Wheeling, WV: my friend Blake came over to ride bikes together, and I accidentally drove mine right into his, knocking us both to the ground.

Middle school years, Oakmont Hills neighborhood in Wheeling, WV: my neighbor Matt was riding in a van with his mom, and just as they drove to a spot right by me, I suddenly and inexplicably fell off my bike to the ground.

College years, mission trip in a large city in "East Asia": I rented a bike to ride it to a neighboring part of the city. While nothing bad actually happened, I pedaled in terror as my mind replayed the above two memories the entire time. It's amazing I survived that 20-minute bike ride.

So, for the purposes of our present conversation, suffice it to say... I have no sympathy for bicyclists.


The Problem with Bikes on the Road
That should read "problems," but the s clashes with the s from bikes

Listen, I know I'm taking an incredibly unpopular line here, particularly in the era of going green. Bikes don't produce the harmful emissions of cars. Riding a bike helps a person stay healthy and fit. Shouldn't we all just work together and make sacrifices for the environment and physical health?!?

Yeah, probably. But I'm not asking everyone to throw away their bikes (or even a more eco-friendly act like turning them into modern art). If you want to bike around to various places, that's your choice and prerogative, as much as it annoys me. But I have two big problems with the way most cyclists seem to do it:

1. Why aren't you obeying any traffic laws??
Cyclists want to be treated on the road like a slow-moving car. My understanding is you yield to them, give them a wide berth, only pass them when you can safely go over into the next (usually oncoming) lane to do so, etc. I'm fine with all that. Bikes can operate and be treated as snail-like, molasses-soaked, slow motion replay, almost-staying-at-rest cars. Whatever. Patience is a virtue, so thank you cyclists, for making me more virtuous. However, why do these "cars" get to run EVERY SINGLE RED LIGHT in the world when no cars are coming? And I mean it--every single one. I've never seen a cyclist who didn't casually pedal through a red light, provided no one was coming. And they're always squeezing between cars waiting at a red light and parked cars just to make sure they can run that red!

2. How can you be so full of rage? Do you think we know car-bicycle laws??
Maybe it's because I'm anciently old, but there were absolutely no questions on my driving test about sharing the road with bikes. There was never an official memo issued years later that said, "Hey drivers, there are now a bunch of slow-moving bicycles right smack in the middle of your driving lane. Sorry if you wanted to be on time to that meeting. Here are the relevant driving laws." So when we legitimately don't know the right way to pass you, or yield to you, or smile as you run every red light, please don't, like, lose your mind and summon the burning ire of all the world's volcanoes. I once unknowingly tried to turn right on red around a group of bikers (who were just sitting there, not making any attempt to turn right themselves), and their grizzled leader seriously almost exploded his own head during his red-faces tirade of screams at me.

A few considerations: I understand that in the large scheme of things, it is the bikers who are at risk in shared road experiences. If they get hit, they can die. Believe me, I want drivers to be informed and safe and for no bikers or drivers to suffer any injuries anywhere at any time (and for you drivers who want to educate yourselves, here's a helpful site). This doesn't change the fact that bicyclists on the road are super annoying. In some sense, the answer to #2 above could simply be, "We're angry at bad driving because our lives are at stake." In theory, yes, of course. But I've seen many cyclists flip out about situations that are not remotely life-threatening, in which the driver's responsibility is not at all clear.

Considerations, cont'd: Furthermore, I've never heard a good explanation for #1 above. I once read a very well-written, angry blog post from a biker about the evils and ignorance of drivers and the glorious innocence of bikers. I wish I could find it now and give you the link. But alas, when I read it years ago, nothing inside me was inspired to bookmark it... Anyway, the writer basically said, "Drivers, when you start obeying traffic laws, so will we." What? Are you kidding me? First of all, imagine a society in which a group of people approaches a law as something they only have to obey if some other group obeys some other law. Secondly, as noted above, we drivers don't know all the laws about bikes on the road--but you certainly know the laws of a red light. Finally, the more you break blatant laws of the road, the more we detest your presence there.

Well, I expect some controversy, if any of my readers are cyclists. That being said, let's keep it friendly (well, to whatever meager standard of friendliness I've set) as we explore:

  • Whether as a cyclist or a driver, what has been your experience of sharing the road?


From theclipartwizard.com... photo credits are stupid.

7.07.2014

How to Argue on Facebook

Friends,

In one of life's great mysteries, I've been giving a lot of attention to my devotional blog and almost none to this one, though the readership of Tangent Space(s) dwarfs that of the other one. As the New Radicals crooned in the days of my restless youth, "Someday We'll Know why..."

But now, O readers, I present a Tangent forged in the flames of internal fire (once I committed to the vocative 'O', I had to end the sentence with something alliterative and epic). We discuss a topic that I both love and hate, and love to hate, and hate that I love, a topic not unlike a car crash from which I can't look away...

Arguing on Facebook.

The Facebook Argument Paradox
You can't live without them, and you can't make them better... until now.

Here's the thing. In a perfect world, debates-- ethical, political, religious, or otherwise-- wouldn't primarily occur on a superficial, delete-able, Like-able, unfriend-able, poke-able social media site rife with pictures of duckface selfies and newborns. But I'm afraid that's the world we live in.

The truth is that conversations, whether they turn into arguments or not, about things like marriage equality, gun control, religious freedoms, abortion, etc., ought to be happening. While, again, Facebook is far from the ideal place for this, it happens to be the setting, at least for now, where people share their opinions. I think there ought to be a way for people to discuss important issues in the medium that is currently most popular for having discussions.

The problem (which you already know if you've used Facebook during an election year) is that these, ahem, discussions often deteriorate into the text versions of all-out bar fights. (I have absolutely no idea what an actual version of a bar fight is like, but I've watched plenty of motion pictures.) 

How should we respond to the history of mean-spirited, illogical, non sequitur, and/or ad hominem tirades we've seen (or taken part in)? It seems like the two most common responses are to 'sink to their level' by spouting off our own angry outburst, or to flee the scene and not take part in any controversial Facebook conversations.

But what if, instead, we could agree to some ground rules? Because I love Aaron Sorkin, what if we borrowed the rules from the reboot of News Night from his HBO hit The Newsroom (as seen here)? 

Facebook Argument 2.0

1. Is this information that people need in the voting booth?
While this isn't the same rubric you or I would use in our Facebook debates, the principle is the same-- is it worth it to weigh in on this? Just like News Night only has 42 minutes of news it can report, you only have so much time and energy to devote to public forums. Choose topics that are important and about which you know something (otherwise just reading and learning would be better).

2. Is this the best possible form of the argument?
Think before you type. Also, read and re-read what you've written before you hit enter. There are many drawbacks to responding in emotion and haste, and making a bad argument is one of them. If after thought and reflection you realize you can't actually argue your point well, again it's probably better to just read up on the topic instead of entering the fray.

3. Is this story in historical context?
Just like it would be shoddy for a news organization to report one event or quotation outside its historical context, so it is when you or I angrily opine on only one facet, element, or quotation from a much larger issue and ignore the many other factors connected to it. This again calls for thoughtfulness; do I understand the entire issue? To give one small but timely example: in the recent Hobby Lobby decision, religious freedom and contraceptive/women's/health rights are both major factors. Both need to be considered. A man has to do his best to understand a woman's perspective. An irreligious person has to do shis best to understand a religious person's perspective.

Just as Mack randomly added a fourth rule, I will do the same:

4. Be kind.
This seems to be the hardest one. Especially when the person you're arguing with is a 'Facebook friend of a Facebook friend', making them essentially not a real person to you. But here's the thing-- they are all real people (except of course for Catfished profiles, but I'm sure they avoid political debates). The people on Facebook, however ignorant, misguided, 'bigoted', short-sighted, unenlightened, or stupid they may be-- are people. You may despise their opinions, beliefs, arguments, etc., but please still show them basic human respect in your disagreement. This allows an environment in which other people can contribute their ideas on all sides of an issue. If you just bash a person, or even bash them back, the conversation is over.

[Note: I've even called out people before for breaking rule 4. Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I have. They usually respond that they were only violently thrashing the person's stance, not the person himself. If that helps someone sleep at night, then okay. But in my opinion, violent thrashing need not enter the picture at all. Saying, "I have no idea what you mean here... your argument makes no sense to me because... I absolutely disagree with your conclusion because" is so much better, to me, than "your idiotic argument... one of the dumbest things I've ever heard... it's insane that anyone would think that way..."]


What has your experience been with Facebook arguments?

Have I forgotten any crucial rules to making Facebook a better forum?

Do you think we can pull it off? Can social networks be a place where conflicting ideas are meaningfully shared with each other?

Jon

From katu.com