14 ms·

I think blanket labelling negative feeling towards uber as reactionary social justice is a pretty good example of hyper-reactionary tribalism.

by tomlock 10y ago

white-flame 10y ago
It 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) 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.
- tomlock 10y ago
  Yeah, I mean, saying its ill-informed (removing bandwagon) outrage is slightly better. Then we get at the real core of the argument - like, what do people feel others are ill-informed about?
  - white-flame 10y ago
    I feel we're speaking different languages here. It doesn't matter what others are ill-informed about, what matters is how informed we are before hopping on the OutrageMobile. 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).
    - tomlock 10y ago
      It sounds kind of like you're implying the negative feeling against uber is related to this issue. Do you feel like the rule of law is being violated here by the negative reactions people are having to uber?
      - white-flame 10y ago
        > 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.
        tomlock 10y ago
        What evidence have you seen that suggests this is the cause of the negative sentiment surrounding Uber?
        white-flame 10y ago
        Looking back at all your questions to me in total, beyond my initial confusion as to which thrust you're going for (with inclusion of benefit of the doubt), the wording of all of your statements seems to be very leading, trying to point away from what I'm talking about and towards an accusatory pigeonholed tone. This is a broad discussion about social sentiment and changes of public discourse which is obviously a chaotic system and not a testable experiment, and one which I posit is being mirrored in situations discussed in this thread about the Uber situation. 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.

I think blanket labelling negative feeling towards uber as reactionary social justice is a pretty good example of hyper-reactionary tribalism.

by tomlock 10y ago

I think blanket labelling negative feeling towards uber as reactionary social justice is a pretty good example of hyper-reactionary tribalism.

white-flame 10y ago

It 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) 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.

tomlock 10y ago
Yeah, I mean, saying its ill-informed (removing bandwagon) outrage is slightly better. Then we get at the real core of the argument - like, what do people feel others are ill-informed about?
- white-flame 10y ago
  I feel we're speaking different languages here. It doesn't matter what others are ill-informed about, what matters is how informed we are before hopping on the OutrageMobile. 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).
  - tomlock 10y ago
    It sounds kind of like you're implying the negative feeling against uber is related to this issue. Do you feel like the rule of law is being violated here by the negative reactions people are having to uber?
    - white-flame 10y ago
      > 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.
      - tomlock 10y ago
        What evidence have you seen that suggests this is the cause of the negative sentiment surrounding Uber?
        white-flame 10y ago
        Looking back at all your questions to me in total, beyond my initial confusion as to which thrust you're going for (with inclusion of benefit of the doubt), the wording of all of your statements seems to be very leading, trying to point away from what I'm talking about and towards an accusatory pigeonholed tone. This is a broad discussion about social sentiment and changes of public discourse which is obviously a chaotic system and not a testable experiment, and one which I posit is being mirrored in situations discussed in this thread about the Uber situation. 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.