It confuses, sickens, and amuses me that people could get the world so twisted in their heads that "social justice" could become a phrase applied negatively to people, movements and feelings.
Interesting.
Things with definitions aren't labels???
My original flagged comment was actually "The invigorating fervor of social justice"; I didn't use the term "SJW." It was a sassy thing I wrote because I thought it was funny how the obvious comment that took no courage to write was shooting to the top as usual. I was making fun of people with who post passionate, rallying cries in the spirit of "we must stand our ground," knowing full well they're on a message board that will congratulate them for it, and, while they're at it, being rather boring.
As for my SJW comment, I was explaining to tomlock why people use "social justice" negatively. I should've added "e.g." before "social justice warrior."
Maybe they're posting these comments because they reflect how they feel?
-- Teddy Roosevelt http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/site/c.elKSIdOWIiJ8H/b.9263...
Real justice involves justice for both sides. SJWs tend to not have that in mind at all.
It's just the way language and societal labeling works, combined with the hyper-reactionary tribalism of the last decade or so.
But, just because that blanket label is overapplied doesn't mean that there isn't a ton of ill-informed bandwagon outrage against Uber, nor that the opposing pejorative SJW labeling of said outrage against Uber is ill-informed bandwagon outrage either, ad infinitum. (assuming all those stacked negatives parse correctly)
There's tons of terrible reacting to both real and contrived issues, recursive through reacting to those reactions. At some point, the reactions cause more issues than the initial issues.
People hear mention of some trigger phrase, like "There's sexism there!" or "They're shoving Islam down our children's throat!" or "Against|For [gay marriage|abortion|etc]!" or "Racist!", and grab the pitchfork and torches to go wreck a company, a person's employment, a conference, an open source project, or whatever, using the power of the mob. How different is this from witch hunts or whatever hundreds of years old nutty rumors people mobbed & destroyed over? How much do you think such rumors are inflated by somebody who was slighted and has a bone to pick, or is otherwise interested in conjuring vengeance?
People are replacing rule of law with rule by mob & rumor, and that's simply not a civil or free society. Even if someone's thrust is "People need to be as informed as I believe I am", civility requires that be addressed ... civilly, not lashing out destructively. Plus, "informed" in that sense is often just a cover for "carries my preferential social/political/economic beliefs", which people in a free society are absolute free to differ at the belief level (the action level is where the law resides).
Do you feel like the rule of law is being violated here by the negative reactions people are having to uber?
I'm not sure exactly how that statement is intended to be parsed.
In this situation, unlike other worse reactions, I think little actual action by the mob is being taken, which is a good thing. It's just a bunch of mudslinging and eye-rolling between the outrage camps as far as I've seen.
But certainly some of the uninformed bandwagon outrage against Uber, and similar backlash against that outrage, stems from the root issues I brought up. People are believing more and more that freedom is a hindrance, society should force others into belief patterns (and even stating such things blanketly), and it's their duty to force those changes because they're just so self-evidently right; instead of allowing civil freedoms to others as long as the law is upheld, and letting due process determine what sort of infractions actually happened. We really don't know what's going on inside Uber. There's certainly enough to believe that there is a real sexism issue, but who knows if it's from the top, or some localized manager who's allowing or encouraging such behavior in his subdomain, or just interpersonal, or inflated by people who didn't like the situation they're in.
I feel enough descriptors about the fundamental concerns I have have already been made. I think both "sides" in this mess are two sides of the same coin of wrong. If you're simply looking for affirmation of one of the 2 sides, and not looking at the societal situation at large, then my point hasn't come across.
- You are horrified that "social justice", being a positive concept, has become a derisive term.
- I point out that this is common linguistic drift, not a special case, and happens to all sides.
- You link it to one side of the Uber reaction debate.
- I say it easily applies to both sides, using the same predicates.
- You focus on one term from my reply, in different usage than mine
- I try to correct that and re-center what I said about it being both sides
(which was from your interjection about one-sidedness)
- You ask for evidence
- I get too suspicious to continue, about you wanting to go only in a partisan direction.
- You suggest there are even parts ill-informed SJW bandwagoning and blanket label application in regards to the uber issue.
- I ask why people would assume people are ill-informed about this uber situation.
- You talk broadly about society but don't address the question about uber.
- I ask if you feel like your views about society apply to the current uber situation.
- You claim people are uninformed again.
- I ask you why you think your views about society are linked to the situation surrounding uber.
- You state I'm trying to lead away from your point (which being on a post about uber is presumably somehow linked to uber).
- I say I'm trying to figure out how you think your view links to Uber.
- You recap the situation without mention of uber.
--
- You suggest there are even parts ill-informed SJW bandwagoning and blanket label application in regards to the uber issue.
I made no claim about the evenness of the parts at all, just presence. The initial equivalence of positive descriptors becoming pejorative has no real quantifier when it comes to people. In a later post, a "ton" is of course vernacular, not a countably precise equivalence, if that's what you're referring to instead of listing the posts in order.
Plus, you can see this started off talking about addressing anti-SJW sentiment, not Uber specifically. The Uber situation was just the godwin-esque trigger that brought it up as a related topic.
--
- I ask why people would assume people are ill-informed about this uber situation.
- You talk broadly about society but don't address the question about uber.
Your question as stated is open-ended about what people feel about others, not about uber in particular. The wording seems to be stepping back and looking at the broader context of where these dichotomies come from. So I answered broadly as warranted. Quoting:
"Then we get at the real core of the argument - like, what do people feel others are ill-informed about?"
--
- I ask if you feel like your views about society apply to the current uber situation.
That's not quite what this question asks:
Do you feel like the rule of law is being violated here by the negative reactions people are having to uber?
and I noted that I couldn't understand what you were getting at with "rule of law is being violated". I explained the relationship between the reactions and the rule of law as per the wording of your question.
Plus, there was an "in this situation..." sentence starting it off by relating the uber situation.
--
- You claim people are uninformed again.
There is plenty of discussion even in this HN page on what we do and don't know about what Uber did and to what scale. Perceivable uncertainty of information literally is being uninformed, regardless of which "side" is taken, and especially when information is relatively new and broader information could be expected to come later. Acting on uncertainty is not allowing due process to proceed and be the final arbiter. In the broad sense, many other examples of action from outrage and counter-outrage (and counter^n-outrage) have escalated on rumor, cherry picking, and stereotyping, more than on complete information.
--
- I ask you why you think your views about society are linked to the situation surrounding uber.
- You state I'm trying to lead away from your point (which being on a post about uber is presumably somehow linked to uber).
You wanted me to link it _only to the reaction against uber_ and omitted the counter-reaction. That's what I find leading & one-sided about those sorts of statements, especially in the context of a thread on comments on anti-SJW labeling, which further linked from negative comments about anti-Uber sentiment. It is very reminiscent of the "Are you pro-gamergate or anti-gamergate" malarkey where everything was worded from and intended to signal allegiance to some chosen side, and also revolved around social justice issues.
The starting comment where you made your primary issue was the negative backlash to the backlashers, which is a level removed from the Uber issue itself.
[Edit: Reading your line again, "What evidence have you seen that suggests this is _THE_ cause of the negative sentiment surrounding Uber?" (emphasis mine), instead of just a suspicion of one-sidedness, I take that as another false accusation of what I said. This multiplicity has really gone beyond reasonable discourse, and beyond any assumption of good-naturedness of discussion. I spent this entire post breaking down my understanding of your words, which you might argue has some misunderstandings in direction of topic, which is fine, but that post of yours is purely a strawman that was overlooked by me in benefit of the doubt and interest in a proper discussion on these important issues.]
--
- I say I'm trying to figure out how you think your view links to Uber.
- You recap the situation without mention of uber.
The issues around the negative reaction using "SJW" pejoratives in general and not about Uber is what your starting comment was, and is what was replied to, and your further questions were asking at face wording about the backlash issues, not about the improprieties at Uber.
I could just as easily ask, "What does your complaining about the term "SJW" being a pejorative have to do with Uber?" Technically, nothing. But it spawns discussion, this is a discussion board, and you brought up the standalone anti-SJW sentiment issue that certainly brought up further discussion about your particular point.
"It confuses, sickens, and amuses me that people could get the world so twisted in their heads that "social justice" could become a phrase applied negatively to people, movements and feelings." <- no Uber in there, just issues of labels arisen from outrage/anti-outrage culture. The Uber issues are about sexual harassment, racism, and other particular actions & accusations, including significant people leaving; not about how social justice is labeled. You were already talking only about the latter.
--
(yes, I'm enjoying the pedantry of all of this. Hopefully you are, too. :-) )
(Edit: see edit above. Having less fun.)
You have for instance suggested that some people are ill-informed about this uber situation. I wonder who you mean? Is it the wider community, is it the commenters on hackernews?
I'm only asking for any evidence of those very qualitative claims.
I'm not going to go round up social media statements I've seen, search for arbitrary postings on public boards I've come across and scoffedly moved past, make audio recordings of discussions I have been around, and the like. Heck, just search the word "fact" on the full comment page for this article. If you claim there is unbelievability leading to burden of proof, that's pretty wild. If you're looking for a stereotype of a group of people that uniformly hold disagreeable positions ("is it commenters on $X?") then that's seeking bigotry, not working against bigotry. Or, it's another leading question, which I must be suspicious of given the track record so far. "Oh, you really mean this group? Hah, you're a bigot!" type of wording.
You're purposefully avoiding acknowledgement of common precedent in human group behavior, and asking for either scapegoats or for me to be a scapegoat, instead of addressing the topic of the presence and incivility of uninformed outrage in general, from multiple directions.
2. Could you restate the question?
3. I don't know, which is why I ask who you're making the claim about - what magnitude do you believe the problem is - and why?
Everything you're saying sounds incredibly anecdotal - which is why I'm confused and seeking clarification on your broad claims about society and their relationship with uber, a company which you've directly mentioned several times.
When you say "common" what do you mean? Do you mean that you personally have commonly seen these precedents? Who? When? How many?
The only explanation for your position that I can muster is that you're being intentionally obtuse to try to claim ignorance of behavior that would work against your arguments.
Consider the sports team that was accused of raping a girl, which was then found out to be false. Consider the case of the kid who brought that disassembled clock to school, and the initial outrage against how he was treated, before all the facts came out. Consider the violence committed against Sikhs by people who don't know what Muslims dress like. Consider the outrage against the woman who sued McDonald's when she spilled hot coffee on herself. You simply cannot be on the internet and not have seen such examples setting precedent for uninformed outrage, the media benefiting from it, and fringe sites claiming whatever to drum up their own counter-outrage to grab new niche audiences.
These situations are "common" as in commonly occurring, and even a subset around them related to social issues have been common enough to form the well-traveled "SJW" moniker, in both positive and negative lights.
Again, what makes you feel uninformed outrage is a significant theme when considering this situation with uber?
Are four examples enough to draw broad conclusions about people in a society?
I also have no idea why you're so defensive to the initial statements, which are pretty cut and dry, expanding the targeted situations to more common behaviors for greater understanding and less vilification.
As shown before, the red herrings are shown pointless by how easily the tables can be turned with them:
"What does "social justice" being pejorative have to do with Uber?"
"What evidence can you bring that "social justice" is even used as a pejorative in the first place, while I feign ignorance of having any exposure to the term at all?"
Terms relating to "outrage" yields tons of absolutely related hits on Google that you can research yourself, if you're so removed from social reality (which strangely enough, you seemed to be arguing from a supposedly informed stance before). 4 major media outrage incidents (and one being an entire classification of incidents) that were backed off because of outrage before information coming that quickly to mind are reinforced by the many others available at your fingertips to bring you back up to familiarity.
Tracing it back to behavior during the witch hunts, religious inquisitors (which much of outrage culture directly mimics), any lynching/mob style situation, kangaroo courts of various forms, and even modern propaganda of war efforts point to the same human reactionary behavior as a steady theme throughout history.
What makes you think outrage is a major factor in this uber situation? Are "hits on google" enough to justify a claim?
So... my response to your limited scope claim somehow can not be allowed to be limited to that same scope? Why must my limited scope response be related to Uber? Why do you think I had any disagreement with you to begin with, that caused your defensiveness and signaling? Provide evidence.
"What makes you think outrage is a major factor in this uber situation?"
Another rewording that keeps moving the goalposts. I've laid out my statements about the general incivility of outrage regardless of the outrage's target, and its general presence.
If you dismiss all claims of commonly shared observations as being irrelevant, and have a lack of exposure of major & minor media discussion on this very topic, I will defer to you to look into academic publications around social justice studies, as that is a structured university subject in some institutions now.
Why are you asking me to look into academic publications? Will they help me understand who exactly you're referring to, and if the scope of your comments extends to this uber situation?
"So... since your scope is the same as mine, your scope is limited to people that posted pejoratively about social justice?"
You defined your own scope by creating your response, and claim appropriateness of discussion. I did not see the flagged response, but was it talking about people who post pejoratively about social justice? I doubt it. I would infer from context that it was itself being pejorative about social justice, not about posts about pejorative social justice views. Your addendum and response was a creation on top of that, and accepted that as the new scope. Therefore, in the same way, I defined the scope of my response as an addendum and response to yours, also bringing in a new voice to add another perspective to the discussion. The scope is not just that social justice is derided, but that you have negative reactions to that derision, which I assume was unrequested and unrepresented, until you decided to add your new voice to that statement, extending the scope to include your negative reactions. In the same way, I added a related clarifying broadening to the scope of posting pejoratively about social justice, contextualizing peer verbage that has also been historically positive but became negative labels.
Sadly, I don't think I can bring hard evidence that this is how discussions work, but can only say that I've very commonly observed this to be the expected process of threaded web-based discussions. I'm not sure if the above qualifies as evidence that you were in line with commonly observed behavior or not.
Obviously, you're asking for evidence for ... whatever you were specifically trying to avoid discussing, so I deferred you to claimed sources of research. If you ask for evidence that universities are sources of researched evidence, then I'll simply leave you to discover your own evidence that matches your unknown-to-me criteria for absolute establishment that is your prerequisite to accepting something as evidence, so that we might either discuss from common understanding, or you would have some basis for counterclaims.
Your questioning of evidence of otherwise broadly accepted behavior indicates that you apparently have not done enough research to at least to understand what social issues entail in terms of objectivity and subjectivity, testing, and observation. Therefore, I question your qualification to be engaged in this conversation, and your ability to form productive and meaningful questions, as observed to be non-assertive to any position anymore.
I'm sorry, what do you think I'm avoiding discussing?
>I would infer from context that it was itself being pejorative about social justice,
No need to infer, I told you this in a comment above.
Any observations you might have had in your life, or social education, or exposure to media or academic reports, that it is not an uncommon occurrence for people to resort to uninformed outrage on exposure to rumor, propaganda, and other such low-information sources.
"No need to infer, I told you this in a comment above."
I skimmed the fairly voluminous text again, and didn't catch a concrete reference, so mea culpa if true.
Also, this is another false representation:
"Isn't your claim that there's "a ton of ill-informed bandwagon outrage against Uber" backed up by your own evidence?"
That is not my claim, and your repetitious insistence of such reveals an intentionality that, shall I state it cordially, makes this game not fun.
I've seen plenty of things on the internet. How is what I've seen on the internet relevant to your broad claims about society at large and more specifically, Uber?
>some of the uninformed bandwagon outrage against Uber, and similar backlash against that outrage, stems from the root issues I brought up.
So is your claim that there's "a ton" of uninformed bandwagon outrage, or only a little? What amount are we talking about?
"It [blanket labeling negatives] does go in all directions, as I've hopefully made apparent in my above post.
But, just because that blanket label is overapplied doesn't mean that there isn't a ton of ill-informed bandwagon outrage against Uber, nor that the opposing pejorative SJW labeling of said outrage against Uber is ill-informed bandwagon outrage either, ad infinitum. (assuming all those stacked negatives parse correctly)"
It's a simple statement speaking against an antecedent fallacy. Look at the negatives and coverages of quantity. The misapplication of a blanket label to an entire population says nothing about the quantity in that population who actually do meet that label; there is no claim on the size of the population of the latter, just exaggerated unrefutables (in that particular logical construct) as demonstrative placeholders to drive the point.
I've asked multiple times what your counterpoint/problem/defensiveness was about, but received nothing but "Prove thyself!" and "Explain your claim!", not any actual discourse about your problem with whatever I said which causes you to make those requests. Obviously, my attempts to provide further explanations were not targeted to what you wanted to see. I would offer feedback that your short responses, which are seemingly broadcasting defensive steadfastness to 1 side and not seeking to broadcast openness, did not offer any useful specific feedback into what you were exactly having problems with, so I could only infer based on posture what you might need to understand. Said responses were very demanding without really offering direction to the demands, or if there's an issue with my "claims", what your current open understanding was. That's not a good way to elicit useful response. If you haven't noticed, I enjoy tearing into complex and important issues, and am happy to offer targeted dissections, if some actual target is elucidated.
>You've made some very broad claims about society in your discussion.
>You have for instance suggested that some people are ill-informed about this uber situation.
>I wonder who you mean? Is it the wider community, is it the commenters on hackernews?
>I'm only asking for any evidence of those very qualitative claims.
No, I said that it's expected to be present to some degree, both in the anti-uber camp and the leave-uber-alone camps, given the precedent of similar situations, and the social herd effects seen across the entire history of human behavior.
I'm also very much not satisfied with the claim that you are unaware of the problems of outrage and need evidence, especially as it's at the crux of many of both defend-sjw and destroy-sjw spats (pointed out because you started with SJW issues), but way more importantly, recent high profile elections where campaigning has been all about fomenting outrage against the other candidates as a propaganda tool, the immigration outrages including brexit, "fake news", and the climate of war (both military and "war on drugs" style "wars") and the propaganda around it. These are unavoidable media issues, all focused on manipulation of ill-informed outrage and their negative effects. I will not just stand by the statement that "there is ill-informed outrage in society", but that the media has been broadcasting that same conclusion for a long while now, a pretty strong supporting fact for a specifically social issue.
I will draw the conclusion that you are prejudiced against me, by evidence of the continual distortion of my phrases and attempts to attribute falsified claims to me, in the presumption that that would match predetermined negative judgment. Part of this conclusion is your refusal to engage in presenting your own related views, and only attempting misguided and overt entrapment tactics, instead of actually having a human conversation where we actually share something.
I ask where this stems from.
I can make a shaky inference based on the consistent direction of your misrepresentations that you hold pro-SJW leanings and wish to paint me as anti-SJW. My statements aren't anti-SJW, and your misrepresentations seem to attempt to twist them for prosecution in that direction, selectively omitting anything that balances my statements to be broader beyond the sjw/anti-sjw false dichotomy.
> I'm just going down the pedantic rabbit hole because hey, many of us are technical people, and it's fun to be precise. :-)
> what matters is how informed we are before hopping on the OutrageMobile.
I'm trying to understand.
Look, I'm very much offering a conversation in good faith, including my opinions (both freely positive and negative) in good faith. You're not offering anything. Your questions are unrelated to my statements, driving towards something I do not claim. After saying that you're misrepresenting me and my attempting to offer correction to those misrepresentations, you don't respond and continue with the same misrepresentations. You're not helping resolve your misunderstanding of what I said, because you're trying to say as little as possible (which is commonly read as socratic entrapment, and which hasn't worked because whatever you're trying to trap isn't part of this apparently).
Let me again take a seemingly futile attempt at unwrapping yourself from the wrong axle you call my statements:
"You seem to believe that ill-informed outrage is an issue in this uber situation."
I've constantly refuted what you say, and I guess it's only appropriate that you try different wordings. What are you implying by "an issue"? I don't care here what issues it may or may not bring, I simply pointed out its presence and equality across conflicting factions. You're the one harping on whatever that "issue" is, and I'm just trying to respond to you. You have an agenda, something you want to extract from me. I've given you pretty much everything already. If you haven't seen what you want, it's not there.
" You do not appear informed on the degree to which it is actually an issue in this situation."
That's because I never claimed it was an issue. You're the one taking issue that I happened to say something that included the words "ill-informed outrage" and have been a one-track pony going on some tangent with that snippet, stating nothing of what you're trying to get at. I just try to respond to with clarifying what I was saying originally, but I'm kind of out of tacks to take with that.
"How are you differentiating between righteous outrage, and ill-informed outrage?"
I'm not. It seems you're on some other tangent trying to declare "good outrage" vs "bad outrage" potentially ascribed to the SJW/anti-SJW clash (I can't tell, because you're not actually engaging in two-way discourse at all), while I'm talking about outrage in general.
" You have posted on a thread about uber and mentioned ill-informed uber outrage on several occasions."
My multiple responses are solely an attempt to appease your requests for clarity. But your requests are empty and directionless. The claims that you want clarity on are claims that I did not make, and those constructed claims are as ill-defined to me as they are to you, because nobody here is actually making them, except maybe some scottish strawman.
What do you feel I should offer that I'm not offering which is relevant to the topic you're engaging me on? You've previously said you'd like my observations of outrage online. Why?
If you feel the need to say "ill-informed outrage" clearly you feel some outrage is not "ill-informed". Drawing the conclusion that you feel there are different types of outrage is logical.
Again, I brought a simple postulated example about one blanket negativity applied to the SJW label wars. This is painfully obvious in everything I've said, linking the two concepts (outrage politics and the pro-/anti-SJW flamewars, as well as the myriad other negative outrage examples). If you see the SJW label wars as completely separated from outrage manipulation accusations on both sides, then I'd like to see your view on that. (or heck, any view since you've offered none, yet pry for something)
Something in there put a bug up your nose, and I've been constantly asking what that is. I said a number of things, many people said a number of things, yet you decided to pry with all your might into what I said specifically in some particular phrase there, unsatisfied with any angle of explanation I could muster. You're looking for something.
"What do you feel I should offer that I'm not offering which is relevant to the topic you're engaging me on?"
I would say I offered a simple statement, and you started grilling me on it. I want to know what is so critical to you that you are spending so much time on trying to extract some form of explanation from me. I'm literally just continuing on this for curiosity and entertainment purposes, but my statements are earnest.
" You've previously only said you'd like my observations of outrage online. Why?"
I already, multiple times, and very explicitly said because I can't believe that you have observations that don't include the ones I've had. I would like to hear yours for contrast of such a dramatically different experience than is common on the internet, and its propensity to spread and argue over hot topic discussion issues, of which outrage is so common, as is also offline with media.
Edit: "If you feel the need to say "ill-informed outrage" clearly you feel some outrage is not "ill-informed". Drawing the conclusion that you feel there are different types of outrage is logical."
It's simply an emphatic (along with "bandwagon"), as used in an obvious example to make it more forceful, and drawing negative stereotypes into the negation I was making. Informedness tends to bring level-headedness, so the opposite drives the analogy.
You've made some big claims about society. Clearly, you see some of these reflected in the Uber situation. How? By who?
Given all the many hot-topic major media issues I've listed, which saturate the airwaves, watercooler discussions, and online arguments, how do you dismiss them as just some "big claims" about the current social climate that need further evidence?
"Clearly, you see some of these reflected in the Uber situation."
Clearly, you're impervious to my stating that specificity to uber is not my point at all. But yeah, I've seen and heard my share of railing on this topic with the usual outrage claims & counter-claims, which isn't just some nebulous "reflection" of the overall "situation" I'm positing, but tired content I've seen. Get to the meat of what you're looking for, already, and stop reiterating non-claims.
> what matters is how informed we are before hopping on the OutrageMobile.
Non-sequitur. Please answer my query about your view on the massive global social discussion on outrage being an unfounded claim.
"So you're saying you don't see outrage reflected in the Uber situation?"
That was a general statement about outrage, as I've said over and over.
Also, why did it take you that long to ask that question, if it's what you were trying to pry out from way back when that statement was made? If you'd simply make your partial understanding known, then we'd have a nice human conversation with mutual understanding.
> I'm trying to determine what made you think your view was relevant in this particular situation.use term for pejorativeness! -> good term has been corrupted! -> term corruption is inevitable! -> implications when used in this context! -> watch out for fallacies in implications!
and from there... you're laser-focused on extracting something. Which step isn't clear?
Also, an implication of "your view is irrelevant" is completely antithetical to discussion forums at all (not to mention completely insulting), and yet here you are tons of replies later. At a purely technical level, your view of dissent of the flagged parent might be claimed not relevant, because it didn't agree with whatever they said.
"There's a massive global discussion on how Vitamin C helps prevent/cure the common cold. Appealing to massive global discussion solves nothing."
It's not in the media, and it's a pretty settled deal with some dissent, similar to flat earth or global warming or whatever. The media discredits or ignores that view of vitamin C.
However, vitamin C isn't a social issue.
The thrust is if continual presence in the media (where outrage is literally presented as a global discussion of social issues), and to a lesser extent continual presence in non-fringe major site internet discussions, are valid indicators of a major social issue? Also, have you made a somewhat tacit agreement that it is at least globally discussed? That's progress!
I'm sorry you feel like I'm "laser-focused on extracting something". I'm just trying to determine your view.
"I'm sorry you feel like I'm "laser-focused on extracting something". I'm just trying to determine your view."
I don't believe you. In order to provide evidence that this is truly your purpose, explain what precondition makes you pore into my view in particular and not others. Also, explain the deficiencies in my many presentations and explanations to allow me to help you determine it. Plus, you're completely ignoring my requests to determine your view, so your persistence comes across as quite hypocritical.
Issues "for many people" have previously included: Whether women should vote or not.
Was that an indicator of a serious issue, or should the answer have been obvious?
What specific predicate would disqualify major media presenting the discussion as a serious social issue (and not a dismissive hit piece like vitamin C or bigfoot) as being a reliable indicator of the subject being discussed seriously in a widespread manner? Given that it's a serious discussion in a widespread manner.
I'm sure whether women should vote or not was seriously argued in the newspapers and such, many writings and essays poring the issue, and the subject being discussed in common discussion forums of the time.
verbiage
How do you personally differentiate between hit pieces and serious social issues?
You know, this will eventually degenerate into me asking you in the exact same pointless way, "How do you personally differentiate if sexual harrassment has occurred?" as that's one of the major Uber issues. "How do you prove that your view of sexual harrassment is socially accepted?"
You're just trying to undefine things you don't want to argue, and trying to Ayn Rand away the realities of social systems. Any social-issue motivated claim you're looking to make will be torn down by that same mechanism, if you choose to embrace it.
Your claim about there being an outrage problem in society isn't defining anything.
"You're using "socially accepted condition" as evidence for their being an outrage problem in society."
Let's step back. I said something to the effect that a lot of people are discussing the problems of outrage. The fact that media discusses the problems of outrage is a pretty objective evidence that "a lot of people are discussing the problems of outrage". It doesn't matter how you or I perceive the gravitas of that discussion, just the fact that the discussion is there is shown.
Why are you so wound up and defensive about the posited notion of outrage being viewed as problematic by the general public? What are you trying to defend against?
It's not a left/right issue. From brexit to the DNC corruption charges, it spreads across all walks.
I made a simple statement and example using outrage, directly related to the labeling. I have no investment or bone to pick in shoving it down anybody's throat, and I'll even freely for the sake of argument consider it my own personal anecdotal observation if your insistence of its reach is so important to you.
Yet you're down my throat trying to get me to say something expounding on it, which you're not revealing (which is starting to look quite childish, I might add).
Now, answer why this is such a hot topic for you. You're the motive force in perpetuating it, by constantly demanding explanations of me for literally hours on end, and accepting no answer no matter how much I try to offer you what you seek, and attempt to meet your hidden predicates. That's simply not productive, and certainly not conducive to you getting the answer you want, until you start revealing more.
> (yes, I'm enjoying the pedantry of all of this. Hopefully you are, too. :-) )Each of my reasons are significantly waning without your engagement in discourse, so you do have limited opportunity to complete your quest.
> Like I said before, no evidence you've provided for your broad claims about society has been convincing.Do you carry on in multi-hour interrogations with every single poster on hacker news that you have some unspoken disagreement with? What is different about this content that warrants this behavior from you?
Surely you don't want all this seemingly very purposeful investment of your time just going to waste without resolution.