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.