4 ms·

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]

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.

tomlock 10y ago
>You've made some very broad claims about society in your discussion. >You have for instance suggested that some people are ill-informed about this uber situation. >I wonder who you mean? Is it the wider community, is it the commenters on hackernews? >I'm only asking for any evidence of those very qualitative claims. You've suggested there is ill-informed outrage in society. You've also claimed ill-informed outrage is a problem in the uber situation. The evidence you've appealed to so far, google searches and anecdotes, haven't really satisfied me. I've made it clear that I am trying to understand where you are perceiving this uninformed outrage in reference to the uber situation.
- white-flame 10y ago
  "You've also claimed ill-informed outrage is a problem in the uber situation." No, I said that it's expected to be present to some degree, both in the anti-uber camp and the leave-uber-alone camps, given the precedent of similar situations, and the social herd effects seen across the entire history of human behavior. I'm also very much not satisfied with the claim that you are unaware of the problems of outrage and need evidence, especially as it's at the crux of many of both defend-sjw and destroy-sjw spats (pointed out because you started with SJW issues), but way more importantly, recent high profile elections where campaigning has been all about fomenting outrage against the other candidates as a propaganda tool, the immigration outrages including brexit, "fake news", and the climate of war (both military and "war on drugs" style "wars") and the propaganda around it. These are unavoidable media issues, all focused on manipulation of ill-informed outrage and their negative effects. I will not just stand by the statement that "there is ill-informed outrage in society", but that the media has been broadcasting that same conclusion for a long while now, a pretty strong supporting fact for a specifically social issue. I will draw the conclusion that you are prejudiced against me, by evidence of the continual distortion of my phrases and attempts to attribute falsified claims to me, in the presumption that that would match predetermined negative judgment. Part of this conclusion is your refusal to engage in presenting your own related views, and only attempting misguided and overt entrapment tactics, instead of actually having a human conversation where we actually share something. I ask where this stems from. I can make a shaky inference based on the consistent direction of your misrepresentations that you hold pro-SJW leanings and wish to paint me as anti-SJW. My statements aren't anti-SJW, and your misrepresentations seem to attempt to twist them for prosecution in that direction, selectively omitting anything that balances my statements to be broader beyond the sjw/anti-sjw false dichotomy.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    That is a very shaky inference. > I'm just going down the pedantic rabbit hole because hey, many of us are technical people, and it's fun to be precise. :-) > what matters is how informed we are before hopping on the OutrageMobile. You seem to believe that ill-informed outrage is an issue in this uber situation. You do not appear informed on the degree to which it is actually an issue in this situation. How are you differentiating between righteous outrage, and ill-informed outrage? Does this matter to you? You have posted on a thread about uber and mentioned ill-informed uber outrage on several occasions. I'm trying to understand.

tomlock 10y ago

>You've made some very broad claims about society in your discussion. >You have for instance suggested that some people are ill-informed about this uber situation. >I wonder who you mean? Is it the wider community, is it the commenters on hackernews? >I'm only asking for any evidence of those very qualitative claims. You've suggested there is ill-informed outrage in society. You've also claimed ill-informed outrage is a problem in the uber situation. The evidence you've appealed to so far, google searches and anecdotes, haven't really satisfied me. I've made it clear that I am trying to understand where you are perceiving this uninformed outrage in reference to the uber situation.

white-flame 10y ago
"You've also claimed ill-informed outrage is a problem in the uber situation." No, I said that it's expected to be present to some degree, both in the anti-uber camp and the leave-uber-alone camps, given the precedent of similar situations, and the social herd effects seen across the entire history of human behavior. I'm also very much not satisfied with the claim that you are unaware of the problems of outrage and need evidence, especially as it's at the crux of many of both defend-sjw and destroy-sjw spats (pointed out because you started with SJW issues), but way more importantly, recent high profile elections where campaigning has been all about fomenting outrage against the other candidates as a propaganda tool, the immigration outrages including brexit, "fake news", and the climate of war (both military and "war on drugs" style "wars") and the propaganda around it. These are unavoidable media issues, all focused on manipulation of ill-informed outrage and their negative effects. I will not just stand by the statement that "there is ill-informed outrage in society", but that the media has been broadcasting that same conclusion for a long while now, a pretty strong supporting fact for a specifically social issue. I will draw the conclusion that you are prejudiced against me, by evidence of the continual distortion of my phrases and attempts to attribute falsified claims to me, in the presumption that that would match predetermined negative judgment. Part of this conclusion is your refusal to engage in presenting your own related views, and only attempting misguided and overt entrapment tactics, instead of actually having a human conversation where we actually share something. I ask where this stems from. I can make a shaky inference based on the consistent direction of your misrepresentations that you hold pro-SJW leanings and wish to paint me as anti-SJW. My statements aren't anti-SJW, and your misrepresentations seem to attempt to twist them for prosecution in that direction, selectively omitting anything that balances my statements to be broader beyond the sjw/anti-sjw false dichotomy.
- tomlock 10y ago
  That is a very shaky inference. > I'm just going down the pedantic rabbit hole because hey, many of us are technical people, and it's fun to be precise. :-) > what matters is how informed we are before hopping on the OutrageMobile. You seem to believe that ill-informed outrage is an issue in this uber situation. You do not appear informed on the degree to which it is actually an issue in this situation. How are you differentiating between righteous outrage, and ill-informed outrage? Does this matter to you? You have posted on a thread about uber and mentioned ill-informed uber outrage on several occasions. I'm trying to understand.