4 ms·

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-infor

by 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.
    - tomlock 10y ago
      >Obviously, you're asking for evidence for ... whatever you were specifically trying to avoid discussing, so I deferred you to claimed sources of research. 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.
      - white-flame 10y ago
        "I'm sorry, what do you think I'm avoiding discussing?" 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.
        tomlock 10y ago
        Why is my observation relevant to your claim? Isn't your claim that there's "a ton of ill-informed bandwagon outrage against Uber" backed up by your own evidence? What evidence, and who are you referring to?
        white-flame 10y ago
        You're asking for evidence, and I believe you've seen plenty of evidence because of your being on the internet and being informed enough of the issues to make the complaints and insinuations you have; however, you're not admitting that any evidence presented is admissable, and are not providing any counterpoints. That's why your observations are relevant, because you seem to be pleading the 5th. 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.

by tomlock 10y ago

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.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    >Obviously, you're asking for evidence for ... whatever you were specifically trying to avoid discussing, so I deferred you to claimed sources of research. 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.
    - white-flame 10y ago
      "I'm sorry, what do you think I'm avoiding discussing?" 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.
      - tomlock 10y ago
        Why is my observation relevant to your claim? Isn't your claim that there's "a ton of ill-informed bandwagon outrage against Uber" backed up by your own evidence? What evidence, and who are you referring to?
        white-flame 10y ago
        You're asking for evidence, and I believe you've seen plenty of evidence because of your being on the internet and being informed enough of the issues to make the complaints and insinuations you have; however, you're not admitting that any evidence presented is admissable, and are not providing any counterpoints. That's why your observations are relevant, because you seem to be pleading the 5th. 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.