livedarklions

Now you've gone from reading "someone who rides a bike" to mean "someone actually riding a bike" to reading it as " someone who rarely rides a bike" or "someone who has ever ridden a bike" . None of those is a reasonable reading of the definition.

Caring is irrelevant to the dictionary definition, regular cycling is all that is required. If you look worldwide, I think you'll find literally billions of people who rack up many, many miles riding bikes caring not one little bit about the sport. They are cyclists by necessity.

You'll either need to pick a different word that doesn't have this generalized meaning, or pair it with another word.

BTW, I am passionate about my bicycling, and I can take or leave the sport, so I guess I am not a cyclist either.

Witterings

I honestly can't believe the infighting of whether someone is classed as "A Cyclist" or not ... I wonder if this may help anyone who's unsure of the meaning

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...nglish/cyclist

Jim from Boston

I have previously posted:

Trsnrtr

The only possible reason for intelligent people to argue over something as meaningless as this is beyond me. Maybe it's because of winter.

livedarklions

I'd rather argue about who qualifies to be called a Cyclops.

jefnvk

That was someone else's definition, a few ahead of my original statement.


Actually, according to your definition, regular cycling is not required. All that is required is that someone rides a cycle. There is no regularity specified, hence the person who rides a block a year is as much a cyclist as the one who rides 20k a year.

livedarklions

If you want to stand on your head to invent a ridiculous reading of a simple definition, go right ahead. I can't take you seriously any more. "Someone who rides" indicates a regular pattern or habit to anyone with normal reading comprehension. Your quibble with how frequently that has to be is one you might want to take up with Merriam Webster. In any event, the term is general, and you're trying to make it specific, so even if you're right, you've just proven that the term is even more general than I thought.

Apparently, as I don't wear cleats and don't care much about the sport, I don't have a dog in this fight anyway.

Now, does someone who loses their eye in an accident become a cyclops?

Maelochs

Regular? Repetitive?

Let's see if I've got this ...

Cyclic cycling is key to becoming a cyclist for a cyclops ... or even a bi-cyclops?

jefnvk

So why can one infer that "someone who rides" must indicate with regularity, when the plain reading does not indicate any regularity? And why is inferring a pattern of regularity any more reasonable than inferring any other qualifier?

And if we are requiring an pattern of regularity, what should that qualifier be? Is it a mileage minimum? A number of times per year minimum?

And to tie this back in to the original question, is there more negative reputation associated with a cyclist who rides one rail trail a year than with a lyrica clad road warrior in a 30-strong group ride blocking traffic, who is also a cyclist?

Maelochs

As I understand the language, "Someone who rides" would indeed imply some degree of regular riding, or at least more than one ride in a lifetime--it would be, indeed, a defining attribute, the person is a person who rides. if a person rode to France once in a lifetime, one wouldn't call him "a person who rides to France." (The ocean miles are brutal on components any way--all that salt.)

I have flown in airplanes many, many times ... but no one would ever describe me as "That guy who flies in airplanes."

The phrase "someone who rides" makes {riding" a defining attribute, so yes, regularity or at least a prominent place in one's life, is implied.

So what?

Obviously No word has a fixed meaning. Even all the dictionaries people trot out a "definitive" references have slightly different definitions, and obviously context changes definition.

"One who rides" means something different on horse ranch and at Nevada's famous Bunny Ranch, right?

Really, people are getting a little bit too 'winter on the internet" over this. Naturally we all have our own definitions, and all and none of us are right, depending on the conversation happening at the time (as in, does the other person agree with you?)

Each of the people embroiled in this idiocy, if he or she were reading the same debate over a different term on a different site, the subject matter of which was not interesting ("Is this person a real vegan French chef, or merely a vegan cook who prepares French recipes?") he or she would immediately see it for what it was and point out the idiocy and make some recommendation like ....

Put the keyboard Down. Take two steps back. Tale a few deep breaths. Go to a different thread. Everything will be fine.

it is threads like this which give cyclists a bad reputation.

livedarklions

I think we first have to determine whether forehead centering of the single eye is key to cyclopsiness. Then we can determine whether the acentric cyclops cycles sufficiently to be a certified cyclops cyclist. If he doesn't pedal sufficiently circularly, he is not a cyclops cyclist but just a mashing monster.
I'm surprised that bi-cyclops didn't auto-correct to bicycle cop btw.

badger1

The danger here is that by so privileging the cyclopic gaze one risks occluding the 'other', thus constructing a mono-cyclopic hegemonic paradigm that suppresses bi-cyclopsism.

Witterings

Going back to the original question asked by the OP - "Do Cyclists Have a Negative Reputation?"

Anybody that wasn't a "cyclist" that read this thread and saw the inane squabbling between a bunch of people ... most of whom would probably classify themselves as cyclists .... in a vain attempt to try and score points and be deemed as more knowledgeable and exact in their answer than other people that have a common interest / hobby ....

If they didn't have a negative impression about cyclists before they started reading the thread they sure as hell would by the time the reached the end!

livedarklions

All I know is a cyclops punched me when I offered to take him to a 3D movie. I hate them guys.

Your analysis is too post-Foucaultian BTW.

livedarklions

Without inane squabbling, the internets would be a very desolate place. I don't think cyclists are unusual in this regard.

Obviously, I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but I think what really is going on is that people who care deeply about a subject find it hard to accept that someone else who also cares deeply might see the subject somewhat differently.

When I finally have to check myself, I tend to go in the direction of self-parody.

And yeah, winter sucks.

badger1

Perhaps, but we must also interrogate cyclopsism -- the thing-in-itself -- which is intrinsically unattainable, according to E. Merckx. Several narratives concerning pre-cyclopsism exist. Thus, in Velocipedes Are Us, von Drais affirms pedal-power as the cultural paradigm of expression, whereas in The View From Way Up Here Eugène Meyer reiterates and reifies a post-dialectic cyclisme.

The characteristic theme of the works of both is the positing of a mythopoetical reality, reified in the material structures of the velocipede and high-wheeler respectively. The cultural paradigm of expression holds that narrativity in both cases is used to oppress the Other. In a sense, the British term ‘coming a cropper’ denotes not deconstruction, but neo-deconstruction.

If one examines these cultural paradigms of expression, one is faced with a choice: either reject precapitalist cyclopsism or conclude that reality comes from the masses. Lacan promotes the use of the modernist paradigm of discourse to deconstruct outdated perceptions of cyclists' identity. It could be said that if postdialectic libertarianism holds, we are then forced to choose between postcultural sublimation of mono-cycolpsism into its reification as bi-cyclopsim, on the one hand, and sheer nonsense on the other.

livedarklions

Let me guess, you REALLY don't want to finish that dissertation, right?

badger1

Heh; would that I were so young!

Nah ... like you, I really don't like winter, and I have an hour to spare taking out my weather frustrations here before meeting with my senior undergraduate class, from whom I shall receive papers full of the kind of tripe I typed above. I entertain myself by writing parodies and inflicting it on others here; if I have to wade through it, I see no reason you shouldn't!

fishboat

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

A general comment..
I avoided this thread from the outset as the premise struck me as a waste of good electrons. I popped in to the end to see what all the 6 pages of discussion was about..what a surprise..a rambling discourse that looks to have been circling the bowl for a while now.

I'll go back to following my first instincts..

jefnvk

I'll switch gears and back up livedarklions on this one. I am (or have been) a member of quite a few different "hobby" forums. Pedantic and pointless arguments are the norm on all of them, there is relatively little truly new ideas ever discussed. FWIW, you walk into any hobby shop, the same behavior is exhibited, just generally in a more polite tone.

Outside of upcoming events, most of the knowledge you could want on bikes has already been written here. Take away the conversation and arguments, and you'd probably find it going bankrupt in a hurry.

livedarklions

And just to be clear, I read and enjoy your posts generally, I just don't agree with you on this subject (which I think we exhausted many posts back).

Teamprovicycle

of course ,anyone who take time and thought into incorporating the bike into their daily life for progress if technically a cyclist , but some crack heads just be slacking , on a stolen kids bike and im not going to be put in the same category as a homeless dude that doesn't have any drive or desire to better themselves , except if they are mentally ill then they just need to seek help from a professional i guess , i guess every label has exceptions . ???

avole

Apart from being the most bigoted post I've seen for a long time, it is also way off the beam. You do understand what a commuter is? See https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...#dataset-cald4 . Hint: the key is using transport between work and home on a regular basis.

acidfast7

Just like every population; there's a distribution.

livedarklions

What if the homeless dude rides more and faster than you do? Assuming homeless people don't "have any drive" is a rather stupid over-generalization. There's a lot of working people in Silicon Valley who can't afford housing, for example.