5 ms·

1. I believe there are probably not zero instances of people believing aliens are involved in this situation. I would not make the claim that there are zero in

by tomlock 10y ago

1. I believe there are probably not zero instances of people believing aliens are involved in this situation. I would not make the claim that there are zero instances of a belief for any claim because I don't have that information. 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?

white-flame 10y ago
Regarding #2, I've edited. 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.
- tomlock 10y ago
  Regarding 2, see 1. 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?
  - white-flame 10y ago
    Your complaint was against "social justice" becoming a pejorative, which has nothing to do with Uber. You weren't talking about Uber in what spawned the conversation. It's an obvious red herring. 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.
    - tomlock 10y ago
      The flagged comment used social justice as a pejorative. Which is why my limited scope claim was relevant. You responded that a "ton" of people were ill-informed and outraged about uber, and I asked for more information about that claim. What makes you think outrage is a major factor in this uber situation? Are "hits on google" enough to justify a claim?
      - white-flame 10y ago
        "The flagged comment used social justice as a pejorative. Which is why my limited scope claim was relevant." 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.

by tomlock 10y ago

white-flame 10y ago

Regarding #2, I've edited. 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.

tomlock 10y ago
Regarding 2, see 1. 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?
- white-flame 10y ago
  Your complaint was against "social justice" becoming a pejorative, which has nothing to do with Uber. You weren't talking about Uber in what spawned the conversation. It's an obvious red herring. 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.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    The flagged comment used social justice as a pejorative. Which is why my limited scope claim was relevant. You responded that a "ton" of people were ill-informed and outraged about uber, and I asked for more information about that claim. What makes you think outrage is a major factor in this uber situation? Are "hits on google" enough to justify a claim?
    - white-flame 10y ago
      "The flagged comment used social justice as a pejorative. Which is why my limited scope claim was relevant." 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.