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.