3 ms·

Personally I don't use "socially accepted conditions" slash "major media discussions" slash "global discussion" slash "hits on google" as "evidence" for sweepin

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.
        tomlock 9y ago
        Like I said before, no evidence you've provided for your broad claims about society has been convincing. You made the claim, I asked about it. You've continued to be invested in the idea for some reason. > (yes, I'm enjoying the pedantry of all of this. Hopefully you are, too. :-) )
        white-flame 9y ago
        Yes, that's my reason. Exploration of pedantry, curiosity, entertainment, and digging into important topics. You, however, have revealed no explanation for your continued involvement and insistence on trying to extract something from me. Each of my reasons are significantly waning without your engagement in discourse, so you do have limited opportunity to complete your quest.

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.
      - tomlock 9y ago
        Like I said before, no evidence you've provided for your broad claims about society has been convincing. You made the claim, I asked about it. You've continued to be invested in the idea for some reason. > (yes, I'm enjoying the pedantry of all of this. Hopefully you are, too. :-) )
        white-flame 9y ago
        Yes, that's my reason. Exploration of pedantry, curiosity, entertainment, and digging into important topics. You, however, have revealed no explanation for your continued involvement and insistence on trying to extract something from me. Each of my reasons are significantly waning without your engagement in discourse, so you do have limited opportunity to complete your quest.