5 ms·

>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

by 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.
    - tomlock 10y ago
      I'm trying to get to the bottom of what your claim is, and if you think it has any relevance to this Uber situation, and if so, why. I'm not trying to upset you. I've seen plenty of things on the internet. How is what I've seen on the internet relevant to your broad claims about society at large and more specifically, Uber? >some of the uninformed bandwagon outrage against Uber, and similar backlash against that outrage, stems from the root issues I brought up. So is your claim that there's "a ton" of uninformed bandwagon outrage, or only a little? What amount are we talking about?
      - white-flame 10y ago
        Let me properly quote myself, then, on a sub-issue that apparently has been your subject of some internalized cherry picking: "It [blanket labeling negatives] 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)" It's a simple statement speaking against an antecedent fallacy. Look at the negatives and coverages of quantity. The misapplication of a blanket label to an entire population says nothing about the quantity in that population who actually do meet that label; there is no claim on the size of the population of the latter, just exaggerated unrefutables (in that particular logical construct) as demonstrative placeholders to drive the point. I've asked multiple times what your counterpoint/problem/defensiveness was about, but received nothing but "Prove thyself!" and "Explain your claim!", not any actual discourse about your problem with whatever I said which causes you to make those requests. Obviously, my attempts to provide further explanations were not targeted to what you wanted to see. I would offer feedback that your short responses, which are seemingly broadcasting defensive steadfastness to 1 side and not seeking to broadcast openness, did not offer any useful specific feedback into what you were exactly having problems with, so I could only infer based on posture what you might need to understand. Said responses were very demanding without really offering direction to the demands, or if there's an issue with my "claims", what your current open understanding was. That's not a good way to elicit useful response. If you haven't noticed, I enjoy tearing into complex and important issues, and am happy to offer targeted dissections, if some actual target is elucidated.

by tomlock 10y ago

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.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    I'm trying to get to the bottom of what your claim is, and if you think it has any relevance to this Uber situation, and if so, why. I'm not trying to upset you. I've seen plenty of things on the internet. How is what I've seen on the internet relevant to your broad claims about society at large and more specifically, Uber? >some of the uninformed bandwagon outrage against Uber, and similar backlash against that outrage, stems from the root issues I brought up. So is your claim that there's "a ton" of uninformed bandwagon outrage, or only a little? What amount are we talking about?
    - white-flame 10y ago
      Let me properly quote myself, then, on a sub-issue that apparently has been your subject of some internalized cherry picking: "It [blanket labeling negatives] 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)" It's a simple statement speaking against an antecedent fallacy. Look at the negatives and coverages of quantity. The misapplication of a blanket label to an entire population says nothing about the quantity in that population who actually do meet that label; there is no claim on the size of the population of the latter, just exaggerated unrefutables (in that particular logical construct) as demonstrative placeholders to drive the point. I've asked multiple times what your counterpoint/problem/defensiveness was about, but received nothing but "Prove thyself!" and "Explain your claim!", not any actual discourse about your problem with whatever I said which causes you to make those requests. Obviously, my attempts to provide further explanations were not targeted to what you wanted to see. I would offer feedback that your short responses, which are seemingly broadcasting defensive steadfastness to 1 side and not seeking to broadcast openness, did not offer any useful specific feedback into what you were exactly having problems with, so I could only infer based on posture what you might need to understand. Said responses were very demanding without really offering direction to the demands, or if there's an issue with my "claims", what your current open understanding was. That's not a good way to elicit useful response. If you haven't noticed, I enjoy tearing into complex and important issues, and am happy to offer targeted dissections, if some actual target is elucidated.