5 ms·

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. :-)

• 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.
  • tomlock 10y ago
    I posted about social justice purely because the flagged comment did. Two posts later you claimed there was ill-informed outrage surrounding SJW labelling - so it didn't take much for you to take up the topic. What do you feel I should offer that I'm not offering which is relevant to the topic you're engaging me on? You've previously said you'd like my observations of outrage online. Why? If you feel the need to say "ill-informed outrage" clearly you feel some outrage is not "ill-informed". Drawing the conclusion that you feel there are different types of outrage is logical.
    • white-flame 10y ago
      "Two posts later you claimed there was ill-informed outrage surrounding SJW labelling - so it didn't take much for you to take up the topic." Again, I brought a simple postulated example about one blanket negativity applied to the SJW label wars. This is painfully obvious in everything I've said, linking the two concepts (outrage politics and the pro-/anti-SJW flamewars, as well as the myriad other negative outrage examples). If you see the SJW label wars as completely separated from outrage manipulation accusations on both sides, then I'd like to see your view on that. (or heck, any view since you've offered none, yet pry for something) Something in there put a bug up your nose, and I've been constantly asking what that is. I said a number of things, many people said a number of things, yet you decided to pry with all your might into what I said specifically in some particular phrase there, unsatisfied with any angle of explanation I could muster. You're looking for something. "What do you feel I should offer that I'm not offering which is relevant to the topic you're engaging me on?" I would say I offered a simple statement, and you started grilling me on it. I want to know what is so critical to you that you are spending so much time on trying to extract some form of explanation from me. I'm literally just continuing on this for curiosity and entertainment purposes, but my statements are earnest. " You've previously only said you'd like my observations of outrage online. Why?" I already, multiple times, and very explicitly said because I can't believe that you have observations that don't include the ones I've had. I would like to hear yours for contrast of such a dramatically different experience than is common on the internet, and its propensity to spread and argue over hot topic discussion issues, of which outrage is so common, as is also offline with media. Edit: "If you feel the need to say "ill-informed outrage" clearly you feel some outrage is not "ill-informed". Drawing the conclusion that you feel there are different types of outrage is logical." It's simply an emphatic (along with "bandwagon"), as used in an obvious example to make it more forceful, and drawing negative stereotypes into the negation I was making. Informedness tends to bring level-headedness, so the opposite drives the analogy.