5 ms·

>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 situa

by 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.
  - white-flame 10y ago
    You have posted on a thread about uber and talked about SJW labeling. Why is that? Even if another post was off-topic, you built off its topic. This again is a complete red herring. Look, I'm very much offering a conversation in good faith, including my opinions (both freely positive and negative) in good faith. You're not offering anything. Your questions are unrelated to my statements, driving towards something I do not claim. After saying that you're misrepresenting me and my attempting to offer correction to those misrepresentations, you don't respond and continue with the same misrepresentations. You're not helping resolve your misunderstanding of what I said, because you're trying to say as little as possible (which is commonly read as socratic entrapment, and which hasn't worked because whatever you're trying to trap isn't part of this apparently). Let me again take a seemingly futile attempt at unwrapping yourself from the wrong axle you call my statements: "You seem to believe that ill-informed outrage is an issue in this uber situation." I've constantly refuted what you say, and I guess it's only appropriate that you try different wordings. What are you implying by "an issue"? I don't care here what issues it may or may not bring, I simply pointed out its presence and equality across conflicting factions. You're the one harping on whatever that "issue" is, and I'm just trying to respond to you. You have an agenda, something you want to extract from me. I've given you pretty much everything already. If you haven't seen what you want, it's not there. " You do not appear informed on the degree to which it is actually an issue in this situation." That's because I never claimed it was an issue. You're the one taking issue that I happened to say something that included the words "ill-informed outrage" and have been a one-track pony going on some tangent with that snippet, stating nothing of what you're trying to get at. I just try to respond to with clarifying what I was saying originally, but I'm kind of out of tacks to take with that. "How are you differentiating between righteous outrage, and ill-informed outrage?" I'm not. It seems you're on some other tangent trying to declare "good outrage" vs "bad outrage" potentially ascribed to the SJW/anti-SJW clash (I can't tell, because you're not actually engaging in two-way discourse at all), while I'm talking about outrage in general. " You have posted on a thread about uber and mentioned ill-informed uber outrage on several occasions." My multiple responses are solely an attempt to appease your requests for clarity. But your requests are empty and directionless. The claims that you want clarity on are claims that I did not make, and those constructed claims are as ill-defined to me as they are to you, because nobody here is actually making them, except maybe some scottish strawman.

by tomlock 10y ago

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.
- white-flame 10y ago
  You have posted on a thread about uber and talked about SJW labeling. Why is that? Even if another post was off-topic, you built off its topic. This again is a complete red herring. Look, I'm very much offering a conversation in good faith, including my opinions (both freely positive and negative) in good faith. You're not offering anything. Your questions are unrelated to my statements, driving towards something I do not claim. After saying that you're misrepresenting me and my attempting to offer correction to those misrepresentations, you don't respond and continue with the same misrepresentations. You're not helping resolve your misunderstanding of what I said, because you're trying to say as little as possible (which is commonly read as socratic entrapment, and which hasn't worked because whatever you're trying to trap isn't part of this apparently). Let me again take a seemingly futile attempt at unwrapping yourself from the wrong axle you call my statements: "You seem to believe that ill-informed outrage is an issue in this uber situation." I've constantly refuted what you say, and I guess it's only appropriate that you try different wordings. What are you implying by "an issue"? I don't care here what issues it may or may not bring, I simply pointed out its presence and equality across conflicting factions. You're the one harping on whatever that "issue" is, and I'm just trying to respond to you. You have an agenda, something you want to extract from me. I've given you pretty much everything already. If you haven't seen what you want, it's not there. " You do not appear informed on the degree to which it is actually an issue in this situation." That's because I never claimed it was an issue. You're the one taking issue that I happened to say something that included the words "ill-informed outrage" and have been a one-track pony going on some tangent with that snippet, stating nothing of what you're trying to get at. I just try to respond to with clarifying what I was saying originally, but I'm kind of out of tacks to take with that. "How are you differentiating between righteous outrage, and ill-informed outrage?" I'm not. It seems you're on some other tangent trying to declare "good outrage" vs "bad outrage" potentially ascribed to the SJW/anti-SJW clash (I can't tell, because you're not actually engaging in two-way discourse at all), while I'm talking about outrage in general. " You have posted on a thread about uber and mentioned ill-informed uber outrage on several occasions." My multiple responses are solely an attempt to appease your requests for clarity. But your requests are empty and directionless. The claims that you want clarity on are claims that I did not make, and those constructed claims are as ill-defined to me as they are to you, because nobody here is actually making them, except maybe some scottish strawman.