4 ms·

Common sense and basic regulations to protect people and economies have no place in this laughable economy. What you're describing, what Sanders proposed, would

Common sense and basic regulations to protect people and economies have no place in this laughable economy. What you're describing, what Sanders proposed, would put a dent in the profits of some of the wealthiest, most powerful, and most soulless people in the world. Of course it was shot down, that's one way to tell that he was cutting close to the bone.

stcredzero 9y ago
would put a dent in the profits of some of the wealthiest, most powerful, This is most certainly factual. and most soulless people in the world. This is a factually unsupportable adhominem. Sentiment that contributes to outrage on social media is a form of cultural pollution. People use it for short term gain, but it's a kind of externality which is tearing society apart. (FWIW, I dislike this situation as well.) (Yes, this is obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc )
- jorjordandan 9y ago
  Outrage is a form of cultural pollution? So no one should ever be outraged by peoples actions? Or only in the right circumstances? Who gets to say when its justified, if ever?
  - thanatropism 9y ago
    All of those questions apply to air pollution.
    - jorjordandan 9y ago
      That's true. I guess the difference is that outrage has a function, and can have a utility, so I don't think it's a good metaphor. Viewing it as just 'pollution' implies that it has no value. It's only 'pollution' to those who don't agree with the outrage.
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        That's true. I guess the difference is that outrage has a function, and can have a utility, so I don't think it's a good metaphor CO2 is the best analogy. There needs to be a certain amount for the utility. Too much and too little are detrimental. Viewing it as just 'pollution' implies that it has no value. This is an all-or-nothing fallacy. It's the amount produced which is the issue in the analogy. In reality, there are also finer grained quality issues. To further demonstrate the application of your fallacy, I would agree that there are problems with under-prosecution of certain crimes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHMGbtGGdbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHMGbtGGdbQ However, when the outrage which has reached a fever pitch such that people start calling for abrogation of Innocent Until Proven Guilty based on inherent characteristics, something has gone wrong. Our culture has known, since the times in which the Magna Carta was written, that the protection of the individual from arbitrary imprisonment and prosecution is essential to prevent totalitarian abuses of power. Outrage is easy to over use, its over-use is readily rewarded and such over-use is clearly everywhere, even despite the fact that it's only the excesses of the "other side" that are easily discerned.
        jorjordandan 9y ago
        >This is an all-or-nothing fallacy Not really. Pollution is uniformly unwanted by definition (without you changing the goalposts to CO2, which is naturally occurring, and the naturally occurring CO2 would not be considered as pollution, whereas human created CO2 would). In fact, let's stick with the wikipedia definition: "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change." Outrage, on the other hand, may be very much wanted, or even required. I'm not defending ALL outrage. I'm defending that some outrage may occasionally be warranted. You saw an all or nothing fallacy where there was none. To recap - Argument: Outrage is cultural pollution. My Response: All pollution is unwanted, some outrage may be occasionally wanted or warranted. Your response: Saying pollution has no value is an all-or-nothing fallacy! The worst kind of bad reasoning is the false accusation of a fallacy. Because the person making that claim should know better.
        9y ago
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Outrage is a form of cultural pollution? On the 21st century internet, an alarmingly large portion of it is. Some outrage is justified, clearly. However, the incentive structures online are so extremely skewed in favor of producing outrage, we need a new form of skepticism. I was once outraged by the notion, "Pics, or it didn't happen!" But on reflection, I realized that the new incentive structures made the rewarding of internet fakery far too likely. Young people, realizing this, reacted in a rational way! As with "pics or it didn't happen" this is going to be hard for many to hear, but there needs to be a more rational approach online. As it is, the lowered bar for producing online commentary and media has meant a general drop in quality, and this extends to commentary and media produced for activism and activism itself.

stcredzero 9y ago

would put a dent in the profits of some of the wealthiest, most powerful, This is most certainly factual. and most soulless people in the world. This is a factually unsupportable adhominem. Sentiment that contributes to outrage on social media is a form of cultural pollution. People use it for short term gain, but it's a kind of externality which is tearing society apart. (FWIW, I dislike this situation as well.) (Yes, this is obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc )

jorjordandan 9y ago
Outrage is a form of cultural pollution? So no one should ever be outraged by peoples actions? Or only in the right circumstances? Who gets to say when its justified, if ever?
- thanatropism 9y ago
  All of those questions apply to air pollution.
  - jorjordandan 9y ago
    That's true. I guess the difference is that outrage has a function, and can have a utility, so I don't think it's a good metaphor. Viewing it as just 'pollution' implies that it has no value. It's only 'pollution' to those who don't agree with the outrage.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      That's true. I guess the difference is that outrage has a function, and can have a utility, so I don't think it's a good metaphor CO2 is the best analogy. There needs to be a certain amount for the utility. Too much and too little are detrimental. Viewing it as just 'pollution' implies that it has no value. This is an all-or-nothing fallacy. It's the amount produced which is the issue in the analogy. In reality, there are also finer grained quality issues. To further demonstrate the application of your fallacy, I would agree that there are problems with under-prosecution of certain crimes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHMGbtGGdbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHMGbtGGdbQ However, when the outrage which has reached a fever pitch such that people start calling for abrogation of Innocent Until Proven Guilty based on inherent characteristics, something has gone wrong. Our culture has known, since the times in which the Magna Carta was written, that the protection of the individual from arbitrary imprisonment and prosecution is essential to prevent totalitarian abuses of power. Outrage is easy to over use, its over-use is readily rewarded and such over-use is clearly everywhere, even despite the fact that it's only the excesses of the "other side" that are easily discerned.
      - jorjordandan 9y ago
        >This is an all-or-nothing fallacy Not really. Pollution is uniformly unwanted by definition (without you changing the goalposts to CO2, which is naturally occurring, and the naturally occurring CO2 would not be considered as pollution, whereas human created CO2 would). In fact, let's stick with the wikipedia definition: "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change." Outrage, on the other hand, may be very much wanted, or even required. I'm not defending ALL outrage. I'm defending that some outrage may occasionally be warranted. You saw an all or nothing fallacy where there was none. To recap - Argument: Outrage is cultural pollution. My Response: All pollution is unwanted, some outrage may be occasionally wanted or warranted. Your response: Saying pollution has no value is an all-or-nothing fallacy! The worst kind of bad reasoning is the false accusation of a fallacy. Because the person making that claim should know better.
        9y ago
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Outrage is a form of cultural pollution? On the 21st century internet, an alarmingly large portion of it is. Some outrage is justified, clearly. However, the incentive structures online are so extremely skewed in favor of producing outrage, we need a new form of skepticism. I was once outraged by the notion, "Pics, or it didn't happen!" But on reflection, I realized that the new incentive structures made the rewarding of internet fakery far too likely. Young people, realizing this, reacted in a rational way! As with "pics or it didn't happen" this is going to be hard for many to hear, but there needs to be a more rational approach online. As it is, the lowered bar for producing online commentary and media has meant a general drop in quality, and this extends to commentary and media produced for activism and activism itself.