the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial groups, especially black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society.
the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society, as by genocide or forced emigration.
To swiftly shove your thumb up someone’s ass while said person is still clothed. a variation of a wedgie.
Butt Dart — A Step Backward for Cyclist Safety in the OC
A “game” has started in Orange County where people pretend to shoot cyclists with their hand positioned like a gun while yelling “Butt Dart.” It was introduced on the latest video published by Chad Stewart Towersey (aka ocinstanews) to his 7,000+ Instagram followers. While making a joke and an underlying point about his frustration with cyclists, it poses serious consequences.
Read more here.
Otherness is a diseased state of mind.
And it is the justification for Chad and his campaign against bicyclists in his local area. A campaign which he is hoping will spread across the nation.
There will always be people in our society who find Chad’s antics amusing. This isn’t written for them.
This is written for the people who must shoulder the responsibility of standing up to extremist bullies. This is for the people in the middle who have been inundated with stereotypes about bicyclists and subconsciously empathize with some of the tenets of Chad and his butt dart movement.
A bicycle is inherently different from a motorized vehicle. The people who operate bicycles come in all gender’s, ethnic backgrounds, and social classes. But they all have one thing in common. When they swing their leg over a bicycle, they become an ‘other’.
The automobile has become the dominant form of transportation. Not by natural selection in an evolutionary process. But rather through forced manipulation of the natural environment. Auto culture is a construct with parallels in white supremacy and ethnic cleansing. This was recognized by the Germans, and Hitler had great admiration for Henry Ford. And Henry Ford had great admiration for Hitler.
This doesn’t make all auto drivers Nazi sympathizers anymore than being black makes you a drug dealer. Those are stereotypes and what we are combating here is a deeply ingrained stereotype against bicyclists. More importantly we are discussing how that deeply ingrained stereotype is being used to abuse people who bicycle and where the root of this behavior stems from.
- Bicyclists don’t belong on roads.
a. There are many paths of specious logic in this one stereotype. Most of them have to do with the inherent disadvantage bicyclists have when faced with their larger and stronger counterpart. It plays into the might makes right fallacy. Just because you’re operating a vehicle with the ability to cause more damage to those around you, doesn’t make you superior to them. And it doesn’t lessen their right to operate in a public space.
b. Roads were designed for cars. While this may be true in some distinct locations, such as freeways. Roads themselves were not designed for any one road user and all vehicle types have equal right to use the roads. But for some vehicle types it has been determined that certain vehicles exercise the privilege of using the roads whereas other vehicle types are exercising their constitutional right to the roads.
For further understanding see: Roads weren’t build for cars. By Carlton Reid
- Bicyclists don’t follow the rules.
Bwahahahaha! When was the last time you saw a driver follow the rules of the road to a ‘T’. Literally no one follows every road rule every time. We are human and we make mistakes. Bicycles do have physical advantages that motorized vehicles don’t have. We take up less space (thought that doesn’t mean we need less space). We are lighter and can easily maneuver through area’s motorized vehicles can not. Even our state statutes recognize and have done so for decades, that not all vehicles are equal in how they operate. That is why it is legal for the driver of a tractor trailer to make a right while swinging their vehicle out into the left lane and then over to the right. They need the extra room to make that right turn. Sometimes there rear axle ends up on the sidewalk. It happens.
This prejudicial thinking is the exact same type of thinking which lead educated men to view Jews as morally and physically inferior to themselves. This is white supremacy. This is the channel which Chad and his butt dart crew are flowing down. They see themselves as keepers of the light and bicyclists as those darkies who need to be kept in their place.
The biggest concern I’ve seen from male dominated white channels in the media are that someone will get killed. I believe that this is the natural and intentional consequence of Chad’s butt dart campaign. He has exhibited every other text book example of white supremacy and his final solution will be to get people killed.
I have heard his lame ass excuse about wanting to keep people safe. But to understand what he means by ‘keeping people safe’, we have to understand the coded language of white supremacy.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
When Chad says he want’s to keep people ‘safe’, to whom is he referring? It is my opinion that Chad views bicyclists as threat to the safety of auto culture and when he speaks of keeping people safe, he is using the coded language of the ‘Southern Strategy’.
If you watch any of his video’s which he proudly posts to Instagram. You’ll see that his behavior is not safe, doesn’t follow state statutes on road rules, and creates an environment of fear for bicyclists. So again, who is Chad trying to keep safe?
Silence is compliance and finding humor in Chad’s actions is being complicit in Chad’s actions. And yes, that means you’re a white supremacist too.
So I hope you didn’t laugh when you first saw his butt dart campaign. If you did, then you need to re-evaluate your own internal bias’.
Someday bicyclists will be designated as a protected class. But until that day, anyone who say’s that what Chad is doing isn’t illegal, is plain wrong. Because we already have laws on the books about assault. If you’re not familiar with it, here it is:
The definition of assault varies by jurisdiction, but generally falls into one of these categories:
1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Intent to cause physical injury is not required, and physical injury does not need to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.
2. With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.
3. With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage.
Apprehension v. Fear
In this context, “apprehension” does not mean “fear.” Rather, to experience apprehension, the victim must believe that the tortfeasor’s conduct will result in imminent harmful or offensive contact unless it is somehow otherwise prevented. It isn’t necessary that the victim believes the conduct will be effective in making such contact, only that he believes the conduct is capable of making such contact.
Illustrative Case Law
The classic 1349 English case I de S et ux v. W de S exemplifies the necessity of apprehension in an assault claim. When the tortfeasor banged on the door the first time, it was not assault because he did not cause apprehension. When, however, he struck at the plaintiff with a hatchet when she looked out the window, it was assault, because his conduct caused apprehension of harmful contact.
For a modern analysis of assault in action, see Raess v. Doescher.
Assault and battery
Tort (specifically, intentional tort)
Last updated in June of 2017 by Stephanie Jurkowski.
Chad and his crew are red handed guilty of assault and I’d really like to see more licensed attorney’s address that angle.