Fuck Cars

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[+] Steve@communick.news -7 points 1 week ago (10 children)

I wouldn't assume at all. That's what everyone else is doing.

And the "without provocation" is almost certainly wrong. People don't act like that without some internal reason. Better phrasing would be "without any known provocation".

With the various responses, I get the impression that people assume any known reason would be a justification. As if reason itself is a justification. Of course that's not true at all.

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 4 points 1 week ago (7 children)

I don't know if you've done much cycling on public roads, but your mere existence is enough 'provocation' for some of these nutjobs.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] Steve@communick.news -3 points 1 week ago* (6 children)

Have. It's a part of why I stopped almost 20 years ago.
But still that's just guessing. We don't know much of anything that happened here.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

We know enough to know that nothing justifies that kind of response.

Honestly, I too would like to see the events leading up to it, but I accept that's unlikely to happen. In my view, as soon as a driver gets out of their car to do anything except exchange details after a crash, they've lost any moral high ground regardless, if they had any in the first place.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Steve@communick.news -3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Of course not. Nothing would justify it. But explain it? Sure. Maybe there was an understandable reason for it, beyond bad impulse.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

No.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Steve@communick.news -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

No, what?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

:sigh: Let me spell out for you, then.

Maybe there was an understandable reason for it, beyond bad impulse.

That's one of the most fucking stupid things I've ever read on Lemmy, and that's saying something.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Steve@communick.news -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

So then, what's the reason?
Is "bad impulse" all there is?

parent

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child)

You're absolutely assuming, because you assume the article is wrong to make up your own interpretation of events.

Sometimes motorists are just jackasses that want to hurt cyclists. That's a real thing that happens.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Steve@communick.news -4 points 1 week ago

The article isn't wrong. It never states any reason. It never makes an assumption beyond saying it was unprovoked. The article is quite factual realy.

It's everyone else here who's assuming the man's state of mind, motivation, and sanity even. I'm not assuming you all are wrong. But I'm also not assuming any of you are right. Because the article has no information about your judgments.