4 ms·

Why are you focusing on global discussion? Perhaps you're trying to move the goalposts? Plenty of things are globally discussed. Bigfoot for example. I'm so

• white-flame 10y ago
  I'm focusing on it as a step in showing it as evidence that outrage is a serious issue for many people and not some lone wolf claim by me. This is something you specifically requested evidence for and this backs the claim, which you've essentially agreed to now, and seem to be trying to find a backpedal approach. "I'm sorry you feel like I'm "laser-focused on extracting something". I'm just trying to determine your view." I don't believe you. In order to provide evidence that this is truly your purpose, explain what precondition makes you pore into my view in particular and not others. Also, explain the deficiencies in my many presentations and explanations to allow me to help you determine it. Plus, you're completely ignoring my requests to determine your view, so your persistence comes across as quite hypocritical.
  • tomlock 10y ago
    As I've said before, I don't think any evidence you've presented is sufficient. Issues "for many people" have previously included: Whether women should vote or not. Was that an indicator of a serious issue, or should the answer have been obvious?
    • white-flame 10y ago
      What sort of thing would you accept as evidence for the claim "a particular social issue is being discussed seriously in a widespread manner"? Social systems are not science experiments, and your verbage doesn't seem to indicate any social study background. What specific predicate would disqualify major media presenting the discussion as a serious social issue (and not a dismissive hit piece like vitamin C or bigfoot) as being a reliable indicator of the subject being discussed seriously in a widespread manner? Given that it's a serious discussion in a widespread manner. I'm sure whether women should vote or not was seriously argued in the newspapers and such, many writings and essays poring the issue, and the subject being discussed in common discussion forums of the time.
      • tomlock 10y ago
        >verbage verbiage How do you personally differentiate between hit pieces and serious social issues?
        • white-flame 10y ago
          How do you? Please let me determine your view on your lone wolf dismissiveness of socially accepted conditions. And I will continue to point out your dodging and hypocrisy, as you seem to be doubling down on it by not answering my questions and deflecting. You know, this will eventually degenerate into me asking you in the exact same pointless way, "How do you personally differentiate if sexual harrassment has occurred?" as that's one of the major Uber issues. "How do you prove that your view of sexual harrassment is socially accepted?"
          • tomlock 10y ago
            Personally I don't use "socially accepted conditions" slash "major media discussions" slash "global discussion" slash "hits on google" as "evidence" for sweeping claims I make about society, so the differentiation isn't the basis for any of my arguments.
            • white-flame 10y ago
              Then do you make any claims about sexual harassment at Uber? Have you objectively defined what sexual harassment is, or is that just a "socially accepted condition"? Would you be anti-SJW in saying that criticizing Uber is stupid because it's all based on socially accepted conditions? You're just trying to undefine things you don't want to argue, and trying to Ayn Rand away the realities of social systems. Any social-issue motivated claim you're looking to make will be torn down by that same mechanism, if you choose to embrace it.
              • tomlock 10y ago
                You're using "socially accepted condition" as evidence for their being an outrage problem in society. Now you're claiming I am applying this to definitions. Your claim about there being an outrage problem in society isn't defining anything.