Also, this is another false representation:

"Isn't your claim that there's "a ton of ill-informed bandwagon outrage against Uber" backed up by your own evidence?"

That is not my claim, and your repetitious insistence of such reveals an intentionality that, shall I state it cordially, makes this game not fun.

I've seen plenty of things on the internet. How is what I've seen on the internet relevant to your broad claims about society at large and more specifically, Uber?

>some of the uninformed bandwagon outrage against Uber, and similar backlash against that outrage, stems from the root issues I brought up.

So is your claim that there's "a ton" of uninformed bandwagon outrage, or only a little? What amount are we talking about?

"It [blanket labeling negatives] does go in all directions, as I've hopefully made apparent in my above post.

But, just because that blanket label is overapplied doesn't mean that there isn't a ton of ill-informed bandwagon outrage against Uber, nor that the opposing pejorative SJW labeling of said outrage against Uber is ill-informed bandwagon outrage either, ad infinitum. (assuming all those stacked negatives parse correctly)"

It's a simple statement speaking against an antecedent fallacy. Look at the negatives and coverages of quantity. The misapplication of a blanket label to an entire population says nothing about the quantity in that population who actually do meet that label; there is no claim on the size of the population of the latter, just exaggerated unrefutables (in that particular logical construct) as demonstrative placeholders to drive the point.

I've asked multiple times what your counterpoint/problem/defensiveness was about, but received nothing but "Prove thyself!" and "Explain your claim!", not any actual discourse about your problem with whatever I said which causes you to make those requests. Obviously, my attempts to provide further explanations were not targeted to what you wanted to see. I would offer feedback that your short responses, which are seemingly broadcasting defensive steadfastness to 1 side and not seeking to broadcast openness, did not offer any useful specific feedback into what you were exactly having problems with, so I could only infer based on posture what you might need to understand. Said responses were very demanding without really offering direction to the demands, or if there's an issue with my "claims", what your current open understanding was. That's not a good way to elicit useful response. If you haven't noticed, I enjoy tearing into complex and important issues, and am happy to offer targeted dissections, if some actual target is elucidated.

  >You've made some very broad claims about society in your discussion.
  >You have for instance suggested that some people are ill-informed about this uber situation. 
  >I wonder who you mean? Is it the wider community, is it the commenters on hackernews?
  >I'm only asking for any evidence of those very qualitative claims.

No, I said that it's expected to be present to some degree, both in the anti-uber camp and the leave-uber-alone camps, given the precedent of similar situations, and the social herd effects seen across the entire history of human behavior.

I'm also very much not satisfied with the claim that you are unaware of the problems of outrage and need evidence, especially as it's at the crux of many of both defend-sjw and destroy-sjw spats (pointed out because you started with SJW issues), but way more importantly, recent high profile elections where campaigning has been all about fomenting outrage against the other candidates as a propaganda tool, the immigration outrages including brexit, "fake news", and the climate of war (both military and "war on drugs" style "wars") and the propaganda around it. These are unavoidable media issues, all focused on manipulation of ill-informed outrage and their negative effects. I will not just stand by the statement that "there is ill-informed outrage in society", but that the media has been broadcasting that same conclusion for a long while now, a pretty strong supporting fact for a specifically social issue.

I will draw the conclusion that you are prejudiced against me, by evidence of the continual distortion of my phrases and attempts to attribute falsified claims to me, in the presumption that that would match predetermined negative judgment. Part of this conclusion is your refusal to engage in presenting your own related views, and only attempting misguided and overt entrapment tactics, instead of actually having a human conversation where we actually share something.

I ask where this stems from.

I can make a shaky inference based on the consistent direction of your misrepresentations that you hold pro-SJW leanings and wish to paint me as anti-SJW. My statements aren't anti-SJW, and your misrepresentations seem to attempt to twist them for prosecution in that direction, selectively omitting anything that balances my statements to be broader beyond the sjw/anti-sjw false dichotomy.

  > I'm just going down the pedantic rabbit hole because hey, many of us are technical people, and it's fun to be precise. :-)

  > what matters is how informed we are before hopping on the OutrageMobile.

I'm trying to understand.

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.

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.

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.

You've made some big claims about society. Clearly, you see some of these reflected in the Uber situation. How? By who?

Given all the many hot-topic major media issues I've listed, which saturate the airwaves, watercooler discussions, and online arguments, how do you dismiss them as just some "big claims" about the current social climate that need further evidence?

"Clearly, you see some of these reflected in the Uber situation."

Clearly, you're impervious to my stating that specificity to uber is not my point at all. But yeah, I've seen and heard my share of railing on this topic with the usual outrage claims & counter-claims, which isn't just some nebulous "reflection" of the overall "situation" I'm positing, but tired content I've seen. Get to the meat of what you're looking for, already, and stop reiterating non-claims.

  > what matters is how informed we are before hopping on the OutrageMobile.

Non-sequitur. Please answer my query about your view on the massive global social discussion on outrage being an unfounded claim.

"So you're saying you don't see outrage reflected in the Uber situation?"

That was a general statement about outrage, as I've said over and over.

Also, why did it take you that long to ask that question, if it's what you were trying to pry out from way back when that statement was made? If you'd simply make your partial understanding known, then we'd have a nice human conversation with mutual understanding.

  > I'm trying to determine what made you think your view was relevant in this particular situation.

use term for pejorativeness! -> good term has been corrupted! -> term corruption is inevitable! -> implications when used in this context! -> watch out for fallacies in implications!

and from there... you're laser-focused on extracting something. Which step isn't clear?

Also, an implication of "your view is irrelevant" is completely antithetical to discussion forums at all (not to mention completely insulting), and yet here you are tons of replies later. At a purely technical level, your view of dissent of the flagged parent might be claimed not relevant, because it didn't agree with whatever they said.

"There's a massive global discussion on how Vitamin C helps prevent/cure the common cold. Appealing to massive global discussion solves nothing."

It's not in the media, and it's a pretty settled deal with some dissent, similar to flat earth or global warming or whatever. The media discredits or ignores that view of vitamin C.

However, vitamin C isn't a social issue.

The thrust is if continual presence in the media (where outrage is literally presented as a global discussion of social issues), and to a lesser extent continual presence in non-fringe major site internet discussions, are valid indicators of a major social issue? Also, have you made a somewhat tacit agreement that it is at least globally discussed? That's progress!

I'm sorry you feel like I'm "laser-focused on extracting something". I'm just trying to determine your view.

"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.

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?

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.

verbiage

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

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?"

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.

Your claim about there being an outrage problem in society isn't defining anything.

"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.

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.

  > (yes, I'm enjoying the pedantry of all of this. Hopefully you are, too. :-) )

Each of my reasons are significantly waning without your engagement in discourse, so you do have limited opportunity to complete your quest.

  > Like I said before, no evidence you've provided for your broad claims about society has been convincing.

Do you carry on in multi-hour interrogations with every single poster on hacker news that you have some unspoken disagreement with? What is different about this content that warrants this behavior from you?

Surely you don't want all this seemingly very purposeful investment of your time just going to waste without resolution.