Online research is unlike any other type of research; it yields unpredictable results, and it uncovers information the researcher would never have thought to look for. Such a situation happened to me recently.
I was looking for commentary on a popular post I wrote, and I found a discussion in a forum where I would least have expected to find it. The forum appeared to be devoted to financial matters, particularly the Capital Markets, although there were so many threads of a political and societal nature that I couldn’t tell who frequented this forum, or why.
Among the posts, I found a group of forum regulars who were discussing the outcome of the death of a local cyclist, which I wrote about recently. The driver who killed her was charged with Criminally Negligent Homicide.
The original poster (OP) named the thread discussing this charge: “The Problem With Running Over A Peasant.” He made several key points about the incident.
First, was an observation about the article’s description of the cyclist as a wonderful young woman. Second, the OP assumed that the driver, who had previously worked as an investigator in the local DA’s office, was being protected by his cronies, and as a result, it took them a year to figure out how to take care of one of their own, while still appeasing the “proles.” And, third was the OP’s proclamation: “Silly peasant! Laws are for YOU.”
The reference to the cyclist as a “peasant” perplexed me. Since I’m not a regular on that forum, I can’t say for sure whether the OP meant this literally, or whether it was some sort of inside joke about people who weren’t well-connected. Either way, it set the stage for the other derogatory descriptions this group used to refer to cyclists and anyone who attempted to help the poor and disadvantaged.
As concerns the cyclist, a quick search would have yielded information about her life which would hardly classify her as someone of “peasant” stock. She lived in an affluent neighborhood and graduated from a private university. The name of the university was even mentioned in the thread, yet the OP, who was apparently incapable of rational thought, still looked down on this cyclist as riffraff.
After a few demeaning comments were made about the cyclist, someone wrote a rude comment disparaging those who try to help others. Expression of this attitude was precipitated by an explanation of why she was riding on that road; she was participating in a fundraising event for affordable housing.
The people discussing this story expressed disdain for anyone who would spend their time helping the poor. Maybe on a forum dedicated to making money and attaining wealth, disdain for the poor shouldn’t come as any surprise.
But, digging deeper into the forum, I discovered a number of conservative, far right-wing threads. There was a lengthy thread devoted to the “Birthers” (the group who questions President Obama’s place of birth), along with discussions bashing left-wing and centrist views.
While this may seem to have little to do with cycling, it sets the backdrop for a type of hatred only aimed at cyclists by an extremist segment of society. This hatred revolved around the idea that cyclists who wanted to have all the rights afforded to other vehicles were such a menace that they should be called “Pedal-Nazis.”
As an aside, I may not associate with the right people because I’ve never heard this term before. Although I got the gist of it, I wasn’t certain exactly who they were referring to when they used this pejorative term. I was, however, relieved to find few references to it online, so it must not be as common as I first thought.
At first, due to their constant references to brightly colored spandex cycling clothes, I thought they meant road racing types who ride around in a world of their own. But, they made reference to other cyclists who take the lane or who have the audacity to ride on narrow winding roads. So, I concluded that the term “Pedal-Nazis” referred to everyone who was in the way of a driver who didn’t want to share the road.
Aside from calling cyclists “Nazis,” several members of this group cited cases where they thought it was acceptable to run down a cyclist, on the pretext that if the cyclist didn’t do what was best for the motorist, then he or she was asking for it. Views of this sort are not unique to this group, but the level of hatred they had for cyclists was above the norm.
A lack of knowledge and understanding of history often leads people to misuse terms. The term “Nazi” is a good example. In modern usage, it refers to someone who is an extremist in their beliefs, and who doesn’t allow people to oppose them. Yet, Nazis were fascists who put nation above the individual and who espoused autocratic or dictatorial control of the masses. Riding a bicycle on a road dominated by cars hardly fits this definition, even if a group of cyclists is engaging in this behavior.
Further, cyclists are a minority. They could never attain the power necessary to forcibly suppress the majority or impose any form of societal regimentation, as fascists do. So, clearly, this term was coined just to be inflammatory and to justify hatred of and violence towards a minority group who inconveniences the majority.
Anyone who adheres to such a view, and who uses such insulting terminology to describe a group of people who are doing nothing illegal, has proven him/herself to be a “Mental-Peasant.” In fact, I’d like to use this term to describe all of the rabid cyclist-haters who resort to using misnomers to validate their negligent and irresponsible behavior on the road.
If it’s any consolation, these Mental-Peasants don’t confine their irrational hatred to cyclists. They aim it at the poor, at the working class, at presidents who they don’t approve of, at liberals, and at anyone else who doesn’t agree with them — and more importantly — who doesn’t give them their way.
Knowing where the enemy comes from, and what he believes, is the first step in devising a good defense strategy. A glimpse into the narrow, uneducated, inarticulate world of the “Pedal-Nazi” haters is a good place to start.
