I feel enough descriptors about the fundamental concerns I have have already been made. I think both "sides" in this mess are two sides of the same coin of wrong. If you're simply looking for affirmation of one of the 2 sides, and not looking at the societal situation at large, then my point hasn't come across.

  - You suggest there are even parts ill-informed SJW bandwagoning and blanket label application in regards to the uber issue.
  - I ask why people would assume people are ill-informed about this uber situation.
  - You talk broadly about society but don't address the question about uber.
  - I ask if you feel like your views about society apply to the current uber situation.
  - You claim people are uninformed again.
  - I ask you why you think your views about society are linked to the situation surrounding uber.
  - You state I'm trying to lead away from your point (which being on a post about uber is presumably somehow linked to uber).
  - I say I'm trying to figure out how you think your view links to Uber.
  - You recap the situation without mention of uber.

--

- You suggest there are even parts ill-informed SJW bandwagoning and blanket label application in regards to the uber issue.

I made no claim about the evenness of the parts at all, just presence. The initial equivalence of positive descriptors becoming pejorative has no real quantifier when it comes to people. In a later post, a "ton" is of course vernacular, not a countably precise equivalence, if that's what you're referring to instead of listing the posts in order.

Plus, you can see this started off talking about addressing anti-SJW sentiment, not Uber specifically. The Uber situation was just the godwin-esque trigger that brought it up as a related topic.

--

- I ask why people would assume people are ill-informed about this uber situation.

- You talk broadly about society but don't address the question about uber.

Your question as stated is open-ended about what people feel about others, not about uber in particular. The wording seems to be stepping back and looking at the broader context of where these dichotomies come from. So I answered broadly as warranted. Quoting:

"Then we get at the real core of the argument - like, what do people feel others are ill-informed about?"

--

- I ask if you feel like your views about society apply to the current uber situation.

That's not quite what this question asks:

Do you feel like the rule of law is being violated here by the negative reactions people are having to uber?

and I noted that I couldn't understand what you were getting at with "rule of law is being violated". I explained the relationship between the reactions and the rule of law as per the wording of your question.

Plus, there was an "in this situation..." sentence starting it off by relating the uber situation.

--

- You claim people are uninformed again.

There is plenty of discussion even in this HN page on what we do and don't know about what Uber did and to what scale. Perceivable uncertainty of information literally is being uninformed, regardless of which "side" is taken, and especially when information is relatively new and broader information could be expected to come later. Acting on uncertainty is not allowing due process to proceed and be the final arbiter. In the broad sense, many other examples of action from outrage and counter-outrage (and counter^n-outrage) have escalated on rumor, cherry picking, and stereotyping, more than on complete information.

--

- I ask you why you think your views about society are linked to the situation surrounding uber.

- You state I'm trying to lead away from your point (which being on a post about uber is presumably somehow linked to uber).

You wanted me to link it _only to the reaction against uber_ and omitted the counter-reaction. That's what I find leading & one-sided about those sorts of statements, especially in the context of a thread on comments on anti-SJW labeling, which further linked from negative comments about anti-Uber sentiment. It is very reminiscent of the "Are you pro-gamergate or anti-gamergate" malarkey where everything was worded from and intended to signal allegiance to some chosen side, and also revolved around social justice issues.

The starting comment where you made your primary issue was the negative backlash to the backlashers, which is a level removed from the Uber issue itself.

[Edit: Reading your line again, "What evidence have you seen that suggests this is _THE_ cause of the negative sentiment surrounding Uber?" (emphasis mine), instead of just a suspicion of one-sidedness, I take that as another false accusation of what I said. This multiplicity has really gone beyond reasonable discourse, and beyond any assumption of good-naturedness of discussion. I spent this entire post breaking down my understanding of your words, which you might argue has some misunderstandings in direction of topic, which is fine, but that post of yours is purely a strawman that was overlooked by me in benefit of the doubt and interest in a proper discussion on these important issues.]

--

- I say I'm trying to figure out how you think your view links to Uber.

- You recap the situation without mention of uber.

The issues around the negative reaction using "SJW" pejoratives in general and not about Uber is what your starting comment was, and is what was replied to, and your further questions were asking at face wording about the backlash issues, not about the improprieties at Uber.

I could just as easily ask, "What does your complaining about the term "SJW" being a pejorative have to do with Uber?" Technically, nothing. But it spawns discussion, this is a discussion board, and you brought up the standalone anti-SJW sentiment issue that certainly brought up further discussion about your particular point.

"It confuses, sickens, and amuses me that people could get the world so twisted in their heads that "social justice" could become a phrase applied negatively to people, movements and feelings." <- no Uber in there, just issues of labels arisen from outrage/anti-outrage culture. The Uber issues are about sexual harassment, racism, and other particular actions & accusations, including significant people leaving; not about how social justice is labeled. You were already talking only about the latter.

--

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

(Edit: see edit above. Having less fun.)

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.

I'm not going to go round up social media statements I've seen, search for arbitrary postings on public boards I've come across and scoffedly moved past, make audio recordings of discussions I have been around, and the like. Heck, just search the word "fact" on the full comment page for this article. If you claim there is unbelievability leading to burden of proof, that's pretty wild. If you're looking for a stereotype of a group of people that uniformly hold disagreeable positions ("is it commenters on $X?") then that's seeking bigotry, not working against bigotry. Or, it's another leading question, which I must be suspicious of given the track record so far. "Oh, you really mean this group? Hah, you're a bigot!" type of wording.

You're purposefully avoiding acknowledgement of common precedent in human group behavior, and asking for either scapegoats or for me to be a scapegoat, instead of addressing the topic of the presence and incivility of uninformed outrage in general, from multiple directions.

2. Could you restate the question?

3. I don't know, which is why I ask who you're making the claim about - what magnitude do you believe the problem is - and why?

Everything you're saying sounds incredibly anecdotal - which is why I'm confused and seeking clarification on your broad claims about society and their relationship with uber, a company which you've directly mentioned several times.

When you say "common" what do you mean? Do you mean that you personally have commonly seen these precedents? Who? When? How many?

The only explanation for your position that I can muster is that you're being intentionally obtuse to try to claim ignorance of behavior that would work against your arguments.

Consider the sports team that was accused of raping a girl, which was then found out to be false. Consider the case of the kid who brought that disassembled clock to school, and the initial outrage against how he was treated, before all the facts came out. Consider the violence committed against Sikhs by people who don't know what Muslims dress like. Consider the outrage against the woman who sued McDonald's when she spilled hot coffee on herself. You simply cannot be on the internet and not have seen such examples setting precedent for uninformed outrage, the media benefiting from it, and fringe sites claiming whatever to drum up their own counter-outrage to grab new niche audiences.

These situations are "common" as in commonly occurring, and even a subset around them related to social issues have been common enough to form the well-traveled "SJW" moniker, in both positive and negative lights.

Again, what makes you feel uninformed outrage is a significant theme when considering this situation with uber?

Are four examples enough to draw broad conclusions about people in a society?

I also have no idea why you're so defensive to the initial statements, which are pretty cut and dry, expanding the targeted situations to more common behaviors for greater understanding and less vilification.

As shown before, the red herrings are shown pointless by how easily the tables can be turned with them:

"What does "social justice" being pejorative have to do with Uber?"

"What evidence can you bring that "social justice" is even used as a pejorative in the first place, while I feign ignorance of having any exposure to the term at all?"

Terms relating to "outrage" yields tons of absolutely related hits on Google that you can research yourself, if you're so removed from social reality (which strangely enough, you seemed to be arguing from a supposedly informed stance before). 4 major media outrage incidents (and one being an entire classification of incidents) that were backed off because of outrage before information coming that quickly to mind are reinforced by the many others available at your fingertips to bring you back up to familiarity.

Tracing it back to behavior during the witch hunts, religious inquisitors (which much of outrage culture directly mimics), any lynching/mob style situation, kangaroo courts of various forms, and even modern propaganda of war efforts point to the same human reactionary behavior as a steady theme throughout history.

What makes you think outrage is a major factor in this uber situation? Are "hits on google" enough to justify a claim?

So... my response to your limited scope claim somehow can not be allowed to be limited to that same scope? Why must my limited scope response be related to Uber? Why do you think I had any disagreement with you to begin with, that caused your defensiveness and signaling? Provide evidence.

"What makes you think outrage is a major factor in this uber situation?"

Another rewording that keeps moving the goalposts. I've laid out my statements about the general incivility of outrage regardless of the outrage's target, and its general presence.

If you dismiss all claims of commonly shared observations as being irrelevant, and have a lack of exposure of major & minor media discussion on this very topic, I will defer to you to look into academic publications around social justice studies, as that is a structured university subject in some institutions now.

Why are you asking me to look into academic publications? Will they help me understand who exactly you're referring to, and if the scope of your comments extends to this uber situation?

"So... since your scope is the same as mine, your scope is limited to people that posted pejoratively about social justice?"

You defined your own scope by creating your response, and claim appropriateness of discussion. I did not see the flagged response, but was it talking about people who post pejoratively about social justice? I doubt it. I would infer from context that it was itself being pejorative about social justice, not about posts about pejorative social justice views. Your addendum and response was a creation on top of that, and accepted that as the new scope. Therefore, in the same way, I defined the scope of my response as an addendum and response to yours, also bringing in a new voice to add another perspective to the discussion. The scope is not just that social justice is derided, but that you have negative reactions to that derision, which I assume was unrequested and unrepresented, until you decided to add your new voice to that statement, extending the scope to include your negative reactions. In the same way, I added a related clarifying broadening to the scope of posting pejoratively about social justice, contextualizing peer verbage that has also been historically positive but became negative labels.

Sadly, I don't think I can bring hard evidence that this is how discussions work, but can only say that I've very commonly observed this to be the expected process of threaded web-based discussions. I'm not sure if the above qualifies as evidence that you were in line with commonly observed behavior or not.

Obviously, you're asking for evidence for ... whatever you were specifically trying to avoid discussing, so I deferred you to claimed sources of research. If you ask for evidence that universities are sources of researched evidence, then I'll simply leave you to discover your own evidence that matches your unknown-to-me criteria for absolute establishment that is your prerequisite to accepting something as evidence, so that we might either discuss from common understanding, or you would have some basis for counterclaims.

Your questioning of evidence of otherwise broadly accepted behavior indicates that you apparently have not done enough research to at least to understand what social issues entail in terms of objectivity and subjectivity, testing, and observation. Therefore, I question your qualification to be engaged in this conversation, and your ability to form productive and meaningful questions, as observed to be non-assertive to any position anymore.

I'm sorry, what do you think I'm avoiding discussing?

>I would infer from context that it was itself being pejorative about social justice,

No need to infer, I told you this in a comment above.

Any observations you might have had in your life, or social education, or exposure to media or academic reports, that it is not an uncommon occurrence for people to resort to uninformed outrage on exposure to rumor, propaganda, and other such low-information sources.

"No need to infer, I told you this in a comment above."

I skimmed the fairly voluminous text again, and didn't catch a concrete reference, so mea culpa if true.

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?