| Jan. 8th, 2008 @ 10:02 pm (no subject) |
|---|
I was browsing the newspapers in the kitchen at work.
Cyclists
I happened upon the original opinion piece I recently heard a minor furore over, where a Times columnist proposed stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists.
Or maybe it wasn't coincidence, maybe someone else had looked it up and left that issue out. It doesn't matter. Nor does it matter how scientifically accurate it was[1].
The hyperbole didn't seem particularly unusual; plenty of provocative humorous columns propose physical violence, and I think it's clear without actually advocating it.
Setting aside the generalisations, it seems that a majority of cyclists he sees are acting carelessly, and that's basically what he means by "cyclists". Add people with the exactly reverse experience and terminology, and you have an instant flamewar, given that the way everyone hears each others statements becomes more and more provocative given the difference in terminology.
However, there does seem to be a genuine underlying conflict, in that if sane people A and person B choose to cycle and drive respectively along the same road, their decisions impose a trade-off in inconvenience on each other. Naturally one wants to find a fair balance, but the magnitudes are extremely subjective, so everyone thinks everyone else is being unreasonable, even if they're not being deliberately so.
Most people naturally see their own experience, and that they see, as representative, and even if not, may not have the knowledge to see and generalise other people's situations.
And then it's like the small annoyances of sharing a house with someone -- you recognise your differences on the big issues, but the apparently unimportant ones where the other party is being apparently irrationally intransigent niggle more and more until they flare up into national flamewars.
Comedies
A review of "Balls of Fury" said it was a parody of sports movies like "Dodgeball" and "Blades of Fury". Wait, "Dodgeball" wasn't a parody? Or it's a parody of parodies?
Is there an objective divide between funny films, comedies and parodies? I think there's a spectrum between funny and comedy, though you can generally pigeon-hole it when you see it. And I can see a division between comedy and parody -- Wimbledon is undeniably a comedy, and a romance, but also a sports film, but it does try to depict a genuine tennis tournament. But I can't think of a line that doesn't make Dodgeball a parody as well as a comedy.
Is there a middle ground? Perhaps; even parodies can have tension, but I can't think of any (even theoretical) good examples.
[1] Though if anyone wants to link to any figures vis-a-vis:
* Carbon footprint of recreational cyclist fuelled entirely by imported energy drinks, vs. a car
* Environmental/aesthetic/road-hazard detriment of plastic drinks bottles vs. bleeding cyclist
* Proportion of cyclists vs of motorists who litter thoughtlessly
I'd be curious. I'll provisionally assume he's correct that where he is, whether or not in the country generally, the most litter came from cyclists, as that's what he says he's observed personally. |
20 (87.0%)