Their relationship is complex…
7 Likes
Of course it does. I’m curious what you mean by it, that’s all.
Man, you somehow always seem to find the time to get outraged at people being upset at racists, or homophobes, or bigots of all sort. Somehow, despite it being so meaningless and beneath you, you find time to tut-tut everybody else.
Maybe you need to take a break from the computer, you get worked up way too easily.
8 Likes
I meant no mean. I merely proposed a little academic social theory.
1 Like
Paula is a racist and a bigot, widely known fact.
PS. Where’s her apology? [that’s sarcasm]
The rainbow rebel flag? Well, if I were to guess a meaning:
A lot of out-of-touch white southerners seem to claim that the rebel flag is about southern hospitality and junk like that (a clear perversion of the meaning nearly everyone in the country has for it)
Why not keep perverting that racist traitor’s flag until it can clearly represent something nice?
Its not quite swastika-level of offensiveness means that it can be tainted into something we like, whereas the swastika in the US can only taint whatever it touches symbolically.
4 Likes
Wrong, and exactly along the lines of the Outrage Economy. (I thought I made it up. Apparently it is a quite common term.) I am not outraged. I am merely annoyed by the unending barrage of minor molehills that keep being inflated to the size of Himalayas, the endless barrage of shaming and career destroying over minor and sometimes even only perceived infractions (like when that nobody with false credentials overthrown that cancer researcher over a silly joke), the smugness dripping from the righteous wrath that apparently feels so good, especially when shared in a pack.
When waiting for something or unable to focus enough to do a real work. This is a low-priority thread, believe it or not. It’s you who seem to get rather upset with being confronted with the real scale of the molehills. Sometimes someone should stand up with a three-inch survey rod to provide the perspective.
Projecting anything? I did not get really upset over the internets for ages.
Or get enough people annoyed or even just desensitized that the big things then won’t work. And it will be to the detriment of the Good Causes and in the end all of us.
The same premise of little to big things is also behind the widely discredited broken-windows criminological theory. Maybe there’s a similarity.
2 Likes
Am I the only person who thinks this was on purpose?
“No one is talking about me anymore! My son’s have a new show coming up on a channel lost in the bowels of cable tv. Time to harvest some more of that free outrage publicity! Hey everyone…look at me. Back in the spotlight baby!”
4 Likes
Isn’t that a telling example. I presume you’re referring to Tim Hunt? I mean, I’m only guessing, because he doesn’t match your description at all.
After all, Hunt has not been overthrown as a cancer researcher; he was retired, and all he lost were some of his honorary positions, which he resigned from ostensibly without it being demanded. After his words were criticized by a number of people, none of whom deserve to be called nobody and including the hosts he insulted. With remarks that were not just a joke but witnesses agreed were sexist insults, that he himself said he meant, and the organization he resigned from found contrary to its aims.
But the story about the lynching of a great and active scientist over his honesty is one that gets advanced anyway, with a great deal of outrage. It’s nice to see that despite quoting their false narrative wholesale, you’re merely annoyed. Still it shows a nice double standard: criticizing sexism earns your contempt, outrage that sexism got called out does not.
This might feel like a lot to extrapolate from that, except it’s been so consistent. You plainly have time and energy to stand up for a lot of things. Some meritorious, like privacy rights; others less so, like the CSA being unfairly criticized or the distant threat of knife control. And of course not just people like Deen or Hunt, but even something like gamergate; it may have been composed of outrage and attacking others, but deserved tolerance and negotiation.
And yet you don’t allow everything that sort of courtesy or attention. Emotion in response to gamergate’s outrage doesn’t need to be tolerated. When we talk about people affected by sexism or racism, well, then we shouldn’t care because compassion fatigue. And of course, that it’s simply too time consuming to bother, and now repeatedly that it’s all just manufactured outrage. You know, not like anything you’d prefer us to worry about; a prominent man quit an unpaid position he messed up!
And, of course, you’ve openly stated you’re resentful that anyone would consider your demographic privileged when you can’t find someone. A problem I’m sure many people could sympathize with, for some on top of the issues you’re shrugging off, except it’s hard when you only wave it around as a reason to ignore them.
At what point should we take these various excuses, all only selectively applied, and consider them exactly that – excuses to interrupt and dismiss concerns about demographics other than your own? In which case you could at least stop pretending you’re fighting a fight for everyone and be honest on what you care about.
5 Likes
A common term, and when I click your link I’m taken to a google search that has a hate website that routinely supports white supremacists and harasses gay and trans children as the third result.
Common amoung who, might I ask?
You men when women scientists, skilled and talented, spoke up about sexism?
We get it dude. You’re a bigot. Calm the fuck down and stop waving that flag.
Edit: I looked at the first hit on the google result you linked. It talked about “outrage” over sexually abusing children. So great. Ok. We’re supposed to be cool with sexually abusing children - not get outraged, according to you - and be cool with people who literally try to harass minors into suicide. Why don’t you go to forums more like the ones you sympathize with - where people don’t get “outraged” over racism, homophobia, or rape?
2 Likes
Nothing Paula Deen does can ruin the wholesome image of Lucy and Ricky instilled in me by Weird Al.
1 Like
I think this is the first time I have been proper creeped out on this forum.
Did you research all those links in the time between the post you are replying to and your post, or did you have a mini-database of them all to hand?
You may have made some very valid and cutting points in this, I don’t know. I just felt weird reading it, way too stalkery/creepy for me.
I’m sure you in no way meant to come across like that and of course there is no reason for you to give a flying fuck what I think, I just thought I would mention it, for what it is worth.
1 Like
For what it’s worth, I wasn’t creeped out. I appreciate the calling-out of a local thorny curmudgeon, and I curiously await said curmudgeon’s response.
2 Likes
The former. But I was a participant in many of those discussions, and had read through others at the time, so remembered enough examples of these frustrating double standards that they were reasonably easy to find.
I’m sorry pulling history en masse like that came off as creepy. The thing is this was less about an isolated post than a pattern of very selective dismissal, as @dragonchild12 pointed out. Linking representative history seems like the only solid way to show that.
4 Likes
A reminder that the internet does not forget. If I was a more public person, which I don’t ever want to be, a similar thing could be quite career-ending.
I expect services to appear in the future that will scrub the Net from your “improper” past, whatever is deemed improper at the given place/time/context, sterilizing your image before people start poking around. Maybe there are some already. (Yes, there are. More with “social network profile scrubbing” google search.)
Google routinely provides different results for different people. Maybe its filter bubble decided you’ll find these more interesting.
But if you want to let a “bad” link to stop your thinking, feel free to. If you drink coffee, you should stop because Nazis drank it too. (Hi, Godwin.)
I men what?
I meant this one, specifically.
My first link this one.
Is it the same for you? If yes, could you quote the specific part that riled you out? Maybe you should calm down. It’ll do good for your health in long term.
Does Internet Outrage change much? Except ruining an innocent’s career here or there? Does anything substantial ever change because of impotent tumblr ragefits? Is it worth the noise? How many people will get tired of the schtick and tune out, or get outright alienated to a given cause?
Yes, this one. Retired or not, still a cancer researcher. (Okay, biochem researcher who worked on a mechanism later found important for cancer research, if we want to be nitpicking.)
From what I heard, he got told to resign on his own or “else”. Too tired to source actual details. I think TheRegister.com has it somewhere, or bbc.com or so.
And had a number of others, who actually worked with him, speaking in his favor. Who are missed from the more biased (and more common) narratives.
If that was an insult, what is NOT?
The things were a little less one-sided, in the less biased media less inclined to jump on the bandwagon.
It’s quite less loud than the other side.
You of course get other annoyances in other segments of the media; Fox’s war on christmas is one of the examples. They, and the talk radio “shock jocks”, pioneered the outrage economy. What annoys me is the “foxification” of more and more of the media landscape, it becoming a mainstream wherever you look.
Bits and pieces add up. Sometimes I don’t have the energy to go to the shop or the focus to write code. Putzing on the Net it is then.
When you get a feedback loop, stop feeding it. As simple as that.
It’s a molehill. Does it deserve to be handled as a mountain? Threats are as common as dirt on the Net.
Not so distant in quite a number of countries. I am sorry for your americentrism.
The problem with the do-gooders is that when they win, they don’t call it a day - they lower the thresholds and continue, until the point of becoming a satire on themselves. (See Greenpeace, for example.) Better get them tied down in an unwinnable stalemate, then they at least won’t make things worse in their quest to make them better.
It’s a real phenomenon. Raise the threshold of the outrage to something of actual importance higher than grossly limited. Or you’ll wear out even your supporters over time.
There’s another phenomenon to be wary of: outrage fatigue.Outrage economy is in principle inflational, you need more and more of a stimulus for the same response. And people are already dropping out left and right, with the remaining cores comprising of increasing percentage of fanatics.
Isn’t it?
We’re all one tweet or one sentence away from big trouble. If I’d have a public position, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’d love to go after me. Alas, I don’t.
It’s about a half decade too late. I expended my stores of care for the world over last quarter century. Did not get nearly enough paid back. I am almost empty. I did the best, it was not enough. Not my fault. Should I care anymore? Why, oh why? And, how?
…and these two links were somewhat of a low blow.
You also missed the occasional comments where I chastise people from the other side, usually various drive-bys. But then there would not be the nice, one-sided compilation.
And policing meaningless “racist” (or interpreted as such with various levels of creativity) tweets and various quips, which would otherwise go unnoticed, leaving space for more important but less outrageous news, does help? Other than ritualized group condemnation for a more and more radicalized in-group to bond over? Where is the threshold for shrugging something off, the size where a mountain becomes a molehill? How to find out what is not an issue anymore? In project planning, when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority - the same applies in more areas.
I still got a little care left. Enough to tell you when you are screwing up and likely alienating more people than recruiting. Because you are one of the voices that is making the assholes from the other side looking more acceptable in comparison.
Sick burn, bro. Bummer that it shows even better than the rest of your comment that despite your continued pretenses, you clearly are on one side.
1 Like
Please explain the slang phrase for an ESL?
If you say that, it must be true.
Remember, there are no binary sides, there is a continuum. The variable is not a boolean but a float. (Or, more accurately, a vector space. But anyway.) If you want to live in the us-vs-them world, it’s your choice, but don’t push others into that desert of thoughts.
Mod note: Stay on topic and cool it.
1 Like
You linked to breitbart. That’s all anyone really needs to say. You linked to a “news source” that is openly white supremacist, has published outright lies, supports spreading lies about black murder victims, and is run by people who openly say some women need to be raped in order to teach them a lesson. A website that has outright made it its goal RUIN PEOPLE’S LIVES because they’re transgender, and you chose to link to it while lecturing people about “ruining careers”.
THAT is your fucking go-to news source.
I guess you’re completely without shame or irony.
So yeah, trying to pass off anger about actual child molestation as “outrage”. Because I guess according to you everyone should be hunky-dory about sexually abusing children?
That’s a news aggregator. Courtesy of google. Sorry that it was on the first page of a query response, sorry for not being steeped enough with the who is who of the news to know who are the “bad guys” to immediately discount even before reading.
Okay, here’s Daily Mail, hope you find it good enough.
Google is my go-to source. I have no control over its ranking algorithm.
How can one be expected to know that without spending too much time participating in the outrage economy? Is there any kind of source ratings? A browser plugin, perhaps?
I am too tired to be shamed.
If you mean this,
then I don’t really know what to think anymore. To quote the wikipedia,
Passages recounting interactions, starting when she was seven years old, of a sexual nature with her then one-year-old sister Grace attracted
controversy.[1] Experts described these passages as either too ambiguous to judge, or as describing behavior consistent with normal childhood development.[2][3][4]
Doesn’t sound too outrageous for me. Wikipedia will have to do the job for me now. If it is inaccurate, feel free to edit the article with sourced links and tell me to read the update.
Of course, if somebody looks for excuses to get riled up, anything that can be misconstrued will do the job.
Beware of getting too short fuse to getting emotional over issues. That leads to stupid policies and collateral damage, from child porn trouble for family photos that used to be a non-problem before the hysteria (I think there are some of myself in the family photo book) to students’ suspensions for an imaginary grenade or a butter knife to the whole war-on-drugs nonsense.
