#!markdown
I think there are numerous flaws with this piece and that much of it is
garbage:
The second paragraph states that the trail sabotage was life threatening. Was
the sabotage really life threatening in any significant way? The trails as
they are have occasionally, but rarely, claimed lives, but what is implied is
literally sinister. I haven't seen anything in the media to support this and I
think an opinion article is not the place to bring in new facts without going
into significant detail. This conflation could lead to people who aren't
particularly critical in their reading to take this at face value and spread
this as fact. To be clear, was the sabotage likely intended to be life
threatening or merely impede riding the trail?
From what I've read, no anti-MTB 'activist' has ever communicated anything
about MTBers being dregs of society in any meaningful sense, or that MTBers
lack respect for culture and whatever higher social sensibilities are. Sure,
they definitely emphasise that MTBers lack respect for nature but they also
clearly demonstrate to the vast majority of rational people that they have a
fundamentalist view that is easily discounted on all fronts with the slightest
scrutiny. They do draw attention to MTBers though, and there's just no way
that we can get around the fact that with that attention, it can be seen that
MTBing has some environmental impact. It's important that MTBers make clear
that as a group they do lots of work to mitigate those impacts, make
sustainable trails etc. and are effective at it. Nevertheless, my point is
that this is also an exaggeration, which I believe was intended for emotional
impact at the expense of the real situation.
The stereotypes of women of that age being nice, decent and conservative,
while MTBers are adrenaline-addled, reckless nature destroyers would only be
believable to someone of mental age under 12. Based on that I assume it's
sarcasm, but what's the point. Do you know what women of that age have in
common? They're female and they're about that age.
Does the middle to ageing demographic really form the core of the anti-MTB
movement? I ask that seriously. I have no idea, but given what precedes it in
this piece I wonder whether this is another assumption that could also lead
readers astray. Also, does it matter what age the core of the anti-MTB
movement is? That I don't ask seriously, because what does matter is what they
do and why they think that way.
I do think the point being made that the forest in this area has been logged
and logged, which effectively rebuts a good portion of what some anti-MTB
folks say, is a good one. However, what do we know about this person?
Obviously the acts were de facto anti-MTB, and I damn well hope NSMB.com
(through their connection with the guys who put the cameras up etc) are VERY
sure that the person being charged is actually the person who did it since
they published this and yesterday's articles on the topic, but what do we know
of the person's motive? I'm not saying it's justified, but does the alleged
fit the profile that is put forward here? I think there's a reasonable chance
of that, but after consuming a good deal of the media on this matter there has
been no mention of it as fact. So it's only an assumption. Is there a chance
that this person walks in the area frequently, has had occasional bad
experiences with MTBers (ever seen an asshole riding a bike by chance?) and
has some problems rationalising those experiences but is not motivated by
nature destruction? Maybe this person has real mental issues? What do we know
about this person?
'Wretch of a human,' 'menace to society,' and to suggest this is war seems
ridiculous to me. Wayyyyyyy over the top, as well as being unnecessarily
personal and ignorant.
I'd like to draw attention to the fact that I have made no assumptions about
the author in my comment here. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he is a
nice guy.
For what little it's worth, I think an article like this should really be
based on facts that are publicly available, and not speculation and
assumption. Look how many comments there are- this has received a lot of
interest and an opinion piece should not extend beyond the facts in a way that
could mislead readers. If the facts of the sabotage itself and the perpetrator
are not OK to publish before this goes through the courts, the opinion article
should wait too. And it could be better, but that's only my opinion.
Jan. 8, 2015, 10:52 p.m. - NatBrown
#!markdown I think there are numerous flaws with this piece and that much of it is garbage: The second paragraph states that the trail sabotage was life threatening. Was the sabotage really life threatening in any significant way? The trails as they are have occasionally, but rarely, claimed lives, but what is implied is literally sinister. I haven't seen anything in the media to support this and I think an opinion article is not the place to bring in new facts without going into significant detail. This conflation could lead to people who aren't particularly critical in their reading to take this at face value and spread this as fact. To be clear, was the sabotage likely intended to be life threatening or merely impede riding the trail? From what I've read, no anti-MTB 'activist' has ever communicated anything about MTBers being dregs of society in any meaningful sense, or that MTBers lack respect for culture and whatever higher social sensibilities are. Sure, they definitely emphasise that MTBers lack respect for nature but they also clearly demonstrate to the vast majority of rational people that they have a fundamentalist view that is easily discounted on all fronts with the slightest scrutiny. They do draw attention to MTBers though, and there's just no way that we can get around the fact that with that attention, it can be seen that MTBing has some environmental impact. It's important that MTBers make clear that as a group they do lots of work to mitigate those impacts, make sustainable trails etc. and are effective at it. Nevertheless, my point is that this is also an exaggeration, which I believe was intended for emotional impact at the expense of the real situation. The stereotypes of women of that age being nice, decent and conservative, while MTBers are adrenaline-addled, reckless nature destroyers would only be believable to someone of mental age under 12. Based on that I assume it's sarcasm, but what's the point. Do you know what women of that age have in common? They're female and they're about that age. Does the middle to ageing demographic really form the core of the anti-MTB movement? I ask that seriously. I have no idea, but given what precedes it in this piece I wonder whether this is another assumption that could also lead readers astray. Also, does it matter what age the core of the anti-MTB movement is? That I don't ask seriously, because what does matter is what they do and why they think that way. I do think the point being made that the forest in this area has been logged and logged, which effectively rebuts a good portion of what some anti-MTB folks say, is a good one. However, what do we know about this person? Obviously the acts were de facto anti-MTB, and I damn well hope NSMB.com (through their connection with the guys who put the cameras up etc) are VERY sure that the person being charged is actually the person who did it since they published this and yesterday's articles on the topic, but what do we know of the person's motive? I'm not saying it's justified, but does the alleged fit the profile that is put forward here? I think there's a reasonable chance of that, but after consuming a good deal of the media on this matter there has been no mention of it as fact. So it's only an assumption. Is there a chance that this person walks in the area frequently, has had occasional bad experiences with MTBers (ever seen an asshole riding a bike by chance?) and has some problems rationalising those experiences but is not motivated by nature destruction? Maybe this person has real mental issues? What do we know about this person? 'Wretch of a human,' 'menace to society,' and to suggest this is war seems ridiculous to me. Wayyyyyyy over the top, as well as being unnecessarily personal and ignorant. I'd like to draw attention to the fact that I have made no assumptions about the author in my comment here. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he is a nice guy. For what little it's worth, I think an article like this should really be based on facts that are publicly available, and not speculation and assumption. Look how many comments there are- this has received a lot of interest and an opinion piece should not extend beyond the facts in a way that could mislead readers. If the facts of the sabotage itself and the perpetrator are not OK to publish before this goes through the courts, the opinion article should wait too. And it could be better, but that's only my opinion.