Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>I did say that the lycra has practical utility.

>There is a symbol economy here that I feel you are just not willing to contemplate.

Okay, so let's see. I go out for a ride in shorts and I get a saddle sore. I look online and see that wearing cycling shorts prevents chafing, so I buy a pair and I don't get sores anymore. Exactly what am I signalling? That I have enough money to buy cycling shorts? I'm not really signalling that, it's just that I have no way to wear the shorts without making it plainly obvious that I'm wearing them.

But fine, I don't want to "signal" that, so what are my options? I have to stop going on long rides that would give me sores because someone might feel bad that they can't afford my cycling shorts? Should I also get the cheapest possible bike I can find? Should I just walk everywhere barefoot in whatever rags I can find in a dumpster?

Seriously asking, what do you want? It seems you're not asking for a world without poverty, but rather a world where everyone lives like they're poor, even if they don't have to. Hopefully I completely misunderstood what you meant.

>making cycling a specialized activity that is only respectably done for leisure and with the proper equipment and clothing

"Respectably". Look, man, honestly: people do not give a toss about your bike or what you wear. When I'm out in traffic I have enough on my mind trying not to get killed to look if there's anyone plodding along on an old beater bike in shorts and a t-shirt to make fun of. Just do your thing and let other people do their thing. You're like those guys who get insecure at the gym because they see the buff guys bench press 70 kg instead of focusing on their own routine.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: