They organize with the city (a date and path are set and publicized) to force their bike traffic through town with the ultimate goal of trying to improve safety for cyclists.

A big part of the problem is that they DON’T do this. If they did then people can plan ahead of time to avoid running into them, and way less people would be annoyed with them. But that’s not how they operate, these events aren’t protests because they’re so disorganized. There’s no leadership, no organization, nothing. They also don’t give any notification to locals, law enforcement, the media, or their local governments. This why they’re considered dangerous, it’s because this disorganization puts the cyclists and drivers in harm’s way.

Most people who run into them, like the woman in the video, do so without prior warning. They’re just going about their day when they’re met with a mob of cyclists who are ignoring the established safety laws and blocking traffic. You have no idea where they came from or where they’re going. Their unpredictable. Yes, this woman filming and driving is being reckless, but she’s not the only one in the video who is.

You have a very poor understanding of how these critical masses work, they do NOT function like normal protests, at least in the US.

Most critical masses of cyclists are intentionally made to be spontaneous, barely organized, and they do not give prior warning to locals (through the local media or such), the government, or even the police. The whole point of the intentional disorganization to escape the authorities when they eventually come in to restore order. The reason why they’re called “critical masses” to begin with is because large turnouts is the only requirements of these events. There is no organization or leaders or hierarchy or anything to hold accountable.

So what happens is unsuspecting locals going on about their day get met with a mob of cyclists who are blocking traffic, ignoring any and all established safety laws, and disrupting the flow of the city. The people who do come across them don’t know where they came from, where they’re headed, or what they’re going to do next.

That’s why you can’t “go around them” like you’re suggesting. You’re basically trapped in your car until they go away. These events put the cyclists in danger and they put the drivers in danger. That’s why they’re considered dangerous. If they functioned like how you imagined they functioned, then way less people would have an issue with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass_(cycling)

That’s just false, civil rights weren’t achieved through intimidation. The movement succeeded because it achieved it’s objective through peaceful means. The movement organized peaceful protests to raise awareness and bring attention to the issues, they organized and fought legal battles challenging the status quo, they created institutions to help campaign for their causes, and disavowed violence to win over the general public. It is the prime example in history what peaceful protesting can achieve.

The civil rights movement is not alone, other movements like the suffragette movements in the West, the Salt Marches in India, the Singing revolution in the Baltics, and so on all achieved momentous things peacefully.

I don’t like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you’re asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We’ve always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they’re deemed important? If that’s the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what’s stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.

There’s a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that’s quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they’re only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they’re our entire industry. The company’s stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.

SpaceX is a private business that’s stable, reliable, and competitive. They’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to. It’s easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I’m in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.

I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.

A strawman is when somebody mischaracterize an argument, calling someone a tankie is not that.

This is a very valid point. Nationalization essentially means transferring control of these companies to either Trump or congress as well giving them power to use nationalization as a tool. Not only are they horrendously incompetent but they’re also sure to weaponize it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump went on a spree nationalizing “liberal Democrat” companies or nationalizing companies that compete with his businesses.

I’m not smarter than everyone, but you are dumb enough to think Marxism and Fascism are economic opposites otherwise you wouldn’t have said what you did earlier.

Yes, that’s why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it’s stupid, and a stupid strawman.

The guy that I replied said that we should nationalize any company that receives tax dollars if we depend on it… Buts that case for virtually the entire economy. Everything is touch by our tax dollars and everything in our economy is intertwined. It is a ridiculous suggestion.

Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it’s largest, most important customer, after that customer’s trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed’s CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.

The government doesn’t nationalize on the behalf of companies, it only temporarily nationalizes when to protect the American economy at large. For example, in 2008 the government took hold of a bunch of auto companies to prevent a collapse of this sector. This is not happening here for SpaceX so it doesn’t make sense to do it.

The thing is you would actually have a really good case to temporarily nationalize Boeing because it is basically our entire commercial plane manufacturing sector, and it’s quickly heading towards collapse. This is a case where it makes sense. Starlink and SpaceX don’t fall under this umbrella.

Nationalizing companies is not going to fix the accountability issue we have in the country. The same problems are going to happen, just under new management.

My point is that this can be and is often done without nationalizing entire sectors of the economy

It seems like you don’t know what that term means

Cuba is a shithole by every definition of the word. The only people in the world who think Cuba is decent are brainless Marxists online. Even Cubans don’t agree with your delusions.

This is a false dichotomy. We don’t have to accept either Nazis Marxists. Fuck them both, there other options out that are much better.

Ah yes, I’m sure those peaceful protesters during the civil rights movement didn’t care about the cause they were protesting for.

True, but they also ended the same way. There’s people at out here thinking this is the start of some revolution, and that’s just delusional. This is just run of the mill urban unrest. We’ve had it before and we’re for sure going to have it again in the future.

People who are downvoting literally never leave their house. You are entirely correct. This is an issue of local policy, and that is something that can actually be changed by individuals choosing to be more active in their local politics. It just requires some organization and a coordinated political effort.

Cycling down the street will not only not achieve anything, but it’s also putting both drivers and cyclists in danger. If an accident does happen, it’s not going to be pinned on the driver because they didn’t do anything wrong. Instead, whatever these cyclists were trying to achieve is going to be scrutinized due to their recklessness.

Realistically, the rioters are going to eventually be condemned by the peaceful protestors, and the general population will soon follow, thus giving support for law enforcement to squash them and end the fiasco. This has been the case for a loooooong time.

Most of the people on this site that cheer this on also happen to be the ones who think that the Tiananmen Square massacre didn’t happen, and if it did then it was a good thing.

That’s a lot of important context

Most countries have public options for services and private alternatives as either competitors, backups, or complimentary pieces. It’s very rare for countries to completely nationalize sectors, and it’s especially rare for them to national that many sectors.