3 ms·

What evidence have you seen that suggests this is the cause of the negative sentiment surrounding Uber?

by tomlock 10y ago

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.
- tomlock 10y ago
  I'm sorry you feel pigeonholed. I'm trying to determine what made you think your view was relevant in this particular situation.
  - white-flame 10y ago
    Then let's recap the discussion: - 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. My responses are simply intended to link to the post above them, and step back to see the broader issues, not side-picking squabbling which serves only to exacerbate things.
    - tomlock 10y ago
      I can also recap: - 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. Now here we are I guess?
      - white-flame 10y ago
        I'm just going down the pedantic rabbit hole because hey, many of us are technical people, and it's fun to be precise. :-) -- - 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.)

What evidence have you seen that suggests this is the cause of the negative sentiment surrounding Uber?

by tomlock 10y ago

What evidence have you seen that suggests this is the cause of the negative sentiment surrounding Uber?

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.

tomlock 10y ago
I'm sorry you feel pigeonholed. I'm trying to determine what made you think your view was relevant in this particular situation.
- white-flame 10y ago
  Then let's recap the discussion: - 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. My responses are simply intended to link to the post above them, and step back to see the broader issues, not side-picking squabbling which serves only to exacerbate things.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    I can also recap: - 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. Now here we are I guess?
    - white-flame 10y ago
      I'm just going down the pedantic rabbit hole because hey, many of us are technical people, and it's fun to be precise. :-) -- - 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.)