Oh, I hadn’t even made that connection, yikes!

I, for one, didn't really care about the "smug" part. It's the suggestion of a generalized tendency towards ableism when advocates very much focus on inclusive infrastructure. Trying to pit good causes against each other because of some unspecified bad interaction is poisonous stuff.

There’s legitimate criticisms to be had of some cycling advocacy. Some cyclists are even ableist! But there’s also a lot of lazy leveraging of that term by people who don’t give a shit about cyclists or disabled folks so generalized pitting of these issues against each other is unhelpful.

That’s the wrecker shit. Attempting to leverage one progressive cause again another because someone unspecified said something annoying.

I and others had issue with the lazy use of the term “ableist” applied as a generalized tendency for cyclists, when cycling advocacy often takes the form of fighting for *more* accessible infrastructure.

“You [cyclists] have a tendency to” very much comes off generalization, and suggesting that people reacted to “nothing” also implicates people with legitimate concerns here. Maybe room for some more generous readings of peoples words on both sides here but people felt provoked.

Sorry, hit character limit there and did a sloppy edit. Was meaning to suggest her choosing this time to come at cyclists was wrecker shit, not that your response was. But taking issue with your implied contention that she said nothing wrong.

There’s also Calgary context you may be missing from afar:
1. The province has been attacking cycle infra
2. A cyclist just got killed
3. A journo who some local folks already feel burned by in bad faith interactions on housing, etc, takes aim at cyclists
“Literally nothing” feels like wrecker shit

I’d contend with the “over literally nothing” part of *your* initial post here, and also suggest that some of the folks with legitimate criticisms might feel like you’re lumping them in there.

And the dogpiling isn’t relevant to my legitimate critique, lol. I’ve no interest in justifying every response, especially when I didn’t see most of it. But generalizing, provoking and mocking people isn’t how good conversations tend to start.

Her thread began with “many” and generalized in the very next sentence of the initial post. I saw the thread early, when most replies were friendly and being met with derision. You may have seen it later than I, I tuned out when I saw nothing good would come of it.

It’s a losing game to respond to bad faith engagement bait like that and people should have left it alone, but cycling advocates who do good work here are gearing up for a fight with the province and reeling over the recent death. Sucks to be catching random strays from “progressive” journo’s.