4 ms·

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 t

by 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.
    - tomlock 10y ago
      So... since your scope is the same as mine, your scope is limited to people that posted pejoratively about social justice? 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?
      - white-flame 10y ago
        This really is an entertaining game, seeing how far you will carry your obtuseness and feigned ignornace, and I'm happy to play along. :) Though I will be afk for some time soon. "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.

by tomlock 10y ago

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.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    So... since your scope is the same as mine, your scope is limited to people that posted pejoratively about social justice? 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?
    - white-flame 10y ago
      This really is an entertaining game, seeing how far you will carry your obtuseness and feigned ignornace, and I'm happy to play along. :) Though I will be afk for some time soon. "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.