4 ms·

>verbage verbiage How do you personally differentiate between hit pieces and serious social issues?

white-flame 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.
      - white-flame 9y ago
        First off, I'll continue arguing as much as what I understand you're trying to get at, but you're still not presenting anything, so you'll likely get nothing meaningful to your hidden investigation. If you want the most relevant answers from me, reveal your motive. I'm happy to talk as candidly as possible, and it strongly works against the conversation that you don't. "You're using "socially accepted condition" as evidence for their being an outrage problem in society." Let's step back. I said something to the effect that a lot of people are discussing the problems of outrage. The fact that media discusses the problems of outrage is a pretty objective evidence that "a lot of people are discussing the problems of outrage". It doesn't matter how you or I perceive the gravitas of that discussion, just the fact that the discussion is there is shown. Why are you so wound up and defensive about the posited notion of outrage being viewed as problematic by the general public? What are you trying to defend against? It's not a left/right issue. From brexit to the DNC corruption charges, it spreads across all walks.
        tomlock 9y ago
        Why are you so invested in the notion of outrage being a real social issue? What are you trying to attack? Where have you seen it in relation to this thread, where you bought the issue up?
        white-flame 9y ago
        I'm asking the question here, so answer for once. I made a simple statement and example using outrage, directly related to the labeling. I have no investment or bone to pick in shoving it down anybody's throat, and I'll even freely for the sake of argument consider it my own personal anecdotal observation if your insistence of its reach is so important to you. Yet you're down my throat trying to get me to say something expounding on it, which you're not revealing (which is starting to look quite childish, I might add). Now, answer why this is such a hot topic for you. You're the motive force in perpetuating it, by constantly demanding explanations of me for literally hours on end, and accepting no answer no matter how much I try to offer you what you seek, and attempt to meet your hidden predicates. That's simply not productive, and certainly not conducive to you getting the answer you want, until you start revealing more.

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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.
    - white-flame 9y ago
      First off, I'll continue arguing as much as what I understand you're trying to get at, but you're still not presenting anything, so you'll likely get nothing meaningful to your hidden investigation. If you want the most relevant answers from me, reveal your motive. I'm happy to talk as candidly as possible, and it strongly works against the conversation that you don't. "You're using "socially accepted condition" as evidence for their being an outrage problem in society." Let's step back. I said something to the effect that a lot of people are discussing the problems of outrage. The fact that media discusses the problems of outrage is a pretty objective evidence that "a lot of people are discussing the problems of outrage". It doesn't matter how you or I perceive the gravitas of that discussion, just the fact that the discussion is there is shown. Why are you so wound up and defensive about the posited notion of outrage being viewed as problematic by the general public? What are you trying to defend against? It's not a left/right issue. From brexit to the DNC corruption charges, it spreads across all walks.
      - tomlock 9y ago
        Why are you so invested in the notion of outrage being a real social issue? What are you trying to attack? Where have you seen it in relation to this thread, where you bought the issue up?
        white-flame 9y ago
        I'm asking the question here, so answer for once. I made a simple statement and example using outrage, directly related to the labeling. I have no investment or bone to pick in shoving it down anybody's throat, and I'll even freely for the sake of argument consider it my own personal anecdotal observation if your insistence of its reach is so important to you. Yet you're down my throat trying to get me to say something expounding on it, which you're not revealing (which is starting to look quite childish, I might add). Now, answer why this is such a hot topic for you. You're the motive force in perpetuating it, by constantly demanding explanations of me for literally hours on end, and accepting no answer no matter how much I try to offer you what you seek, and attempt to meet your hidden predicates. That's simply not productive, and certainly not conducive to you getting the answer you want, until you start revealing more.