The Age of outrage

[A Vestigial Mote]

Let me start out saying I agree with the idea that the rest of the articles are examples of people going overboard with misdirected "outrage"... a lot of crap going on there, but with this one in particular:

Head chef gets death threats over spiking vegan food claim
Head chef resigns over ‘spiking’ vegan meal comments

While I don't agree that death-threats were the way to go, pursuing some form of follow-up with the restaurant was completely warranted. The chef apparently made multiple references to it, multiple times, and, from my perspective, the things she said didn't seem to be in jest. If she were joking, I don't think she would have used such definitive language stating that, in fact, she HAD done it. Reading the article, that is exactly what she boasted, multiple times. To the point that her apology:

“I am really deeply sorry. There were no meat products added to the dishes.”

seems very much like a lie.

The reason there's an issue here is that it shows a blatant lack of respect for people you supposedly care enough about to prepare for and serve food to. If, instead, all you're after is the dollar, then what is there to stop you from, next time, spiking the food of a pious/condescending person with a peanut-allergy that you take issue with?

 

[Vee]

This is a brilliant article on political correctness by Nick Cohen:

Political Correctness is Devouring Itself

Great article. I particularly liked this idea: "If students cannot handle the challenge without crying that they feel unsafe, they should not be at university in the first place. If universities refuse to challenge them, I wonder about their usefulness too."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The reason there's an issue here is that it shows a blatant lack of respect for people you supposedly care enough about to prepare for and serve food to. If, instead, all you're after is the dollar,

That's probably the bulk majority of everyone who works food service. There is also huge lack of respect coming from customers. Not every employee is going to spit in food, and not every costumer brings grief, but the lack of respect is definitely a two-way street.

 

[Mindmaster]

If only people were so passionate about ending corruption, poverty, pollution, inequality, etc…

If you only define yourself by what you're against, you are an insufferably weak position mentally. Every single thing that challenges your views will immediately stuff you into what Leary called the first and second circuit responses... He likened these responses to "vegetative-invertebrate" intelligence (making bad choices based on a perceived breach of trust or suspicion of the same) and the "emotional-locomotive" responses. (fight or flight) (Eight-circuit model of consciousness - Wikipedia) Basically, the result of existing in this realm perpetually is largely your ideas of the world are shaped by panic. Likewise, people that argue from this mindset typically lose over the long term with anyone who values tradition, logic, and even people who sympathize with them on issues but will feel the 1/2 circuit response is childish. People operating in this realm will also gladly give up everything to feel perfectly safe - I mean everything, including their freedom. That's why I'm not supporting the extreme left, for example, on many issues - issues that I personally do support. I want them to die in a fire before they destroy us, figuratively. They won't be happy until government invades every single facet of our lives no matter how made up the bogey man, at first glance, is. That's the truth about Trump really is that no one can be as bad as the strawman they create every day. When they're done with that, it's all "Scottsman" arguments... This crap literally only works on you if you let it, and it's terrifying to some degree how much people buy into the BS. These things are typical tools of brainwasher, propagandist, and whatever alike...

Personally, I feel that the better way is to practice what you preach. If you feel poverty is a problem make some food for homeless people, or if you think the planet is polluted go ahead and walk around the local park and clean it up. Lead by example, and you'll get others into the behavior you want without the stick.

If you want to play a game, start asking yourself...

1) What am I?

2) Who am I?

3) How did I come to believe this?

But, do it without identifying yourself by things you oppose or roles assigned by other people... For example, your job, degrees/credentials, your familial status, or anything you believe in politics that you feel you "oppose". You might ending up finding out this list is really freaking short. If you keep asking yourself those three questions you may figure out that most of the ideals you embrace are really just programming from others. If you're for something in a non-opposition way you do not, for example, take a position against it but rather by directly aiding the cause with your sweat equity. You can't claim it as one of your real ideals/values if you do nothing for it. Mostly, this is an exercise in self-integrity, but it can be a fun game to keep anyone from filling their head with **** and is helpful to do periodically over time.

 

[Stanyon]

While I'm in very substantial agreement with the OP, I'd like to point out that it's not just the extreme political left that is trying to stomp out free speech these days. The extreme political right is doing so too. Or have you not noticed the death threats so many people on the left have been getting these days from people on the extreme right merely for expressing their opinions?

For instance: The ‘Free Speech’ Hypocrisy of Right-Wing Media

People routinely express outrage at the suppression of speech they like, but are oblivious to the suppression of speech they don't like.

So now the so called far-right is issuing death threats? It is justified because it is just intolerance to intolerance-at least that is how some on the left have justified their death threats to people and groups they didn't agree with.
Andras

 

[icehorse]

Borrowing from Confucius, I wonder if a name has coalesced around this pattern? Jordan Peterson spends a lot of time on this issue and he tends to call it "postmodern marxism" or some variant of that.

Anyone know if a name is forming?

In any case, I agree that it's primarily perpetrated by extremists (on both ends of all sorts of continuums).

 

[Kapalika]

Some of the OP"s sources have white nationalism ties:

The Daily Caller Has A White Nationalist Problem

And another (Zero Hedge) has dabbled in some conspiracy theories and there is this gem:

"You could ask some of the same questions about the alt-right, the loosely assembled far-right movement that exists largely online, and that overlaps with both the Trump campaign and with the politics of Zero Hedge. Richard Spencer, the white nationalist who came up with the term “alt-right,” described the movement in December as “an ideology around identity, European identity.”

Is the Alt-Right for Real?

Honestly a lot of this outrage is or over stuff that didn't happen that the alt-right and neo-nazis and other nationalists are flat out lying about the actual situation.

RF has been over this one, and it's not as presented.

...

I think there may be more to most of these stories than what is present at first glance.

Essentially, yes. The headlines were too crazy to believe, and after digging through some random sources they are all alt-right. I would imagine many of those likes the OP had would not be given if people checked out the sources more closely.

There were extreme left communists at Charlottesville?

Another good point; as "extreme" as the left gets it's never violent. The Right however, has historically been very violent. More people die to the KKK than to foreign terrorists every year, and yet we have people in high power either sympathetic to them or actively working to not say things directly against them.

 

[Kapalika]

I just checked the sources, other than the wordpress.com site with just a subdomain (come on really?) and the two token guardian articles, all of these are deeply conservative with at least 3 of them being tied with the alt-right and white nationalists.

Again people, check the reputation of the sources particularly when the claims seem outrageous and then see what some fairly neutral sources said as well. Most newspapers actually just take from neutral sources like Reuters who do the actual fact gathering anyway. So most news sources are 2nd hand who give it their own spins.

 

[Revoltingest]

So now the so called far-right is issuing death threats? It is justified because it is just intolerance to intolerance-at least that is how some on the left have justified their death threats to people and groups they didn't agree with.
Andras

I'm reminded of a recent NPR piece which blamed Trump for death
threats to people in the media. They claimed that the cry of "Fake news!"
inspires right wingers to kill. What's so hypocritical is that they ran pieces
comparing Trump to Hitler, which would be at least as likely to to inspire
violence against Trump, his party, & any perceived supporters.
Inflammatory speech is only wrong when the other tribe does it, eh.

 

[Mindmaster]

I just checked the sources, other than the wordpress.com site with just a subdomain (come on really?) and the two token guardian articles, all of these are deeply conservative with at least 3 of them being tied with the alt-right and white nationalists.

None of this actually matters, since this is just a weak genetic logical fallacy/ad hominem. It doesn't refute any assertion simply because it is printed on websites that you are not allowed to read, or recognize as authentic. They could print 99% garbage and still be right directly in the context of the single articles presented.

It's simply the "don't trust that news" because it doesn't fit "my personal confirmation bias" argument. Doesn't work, not at all.

 

[Mindmaster]

I'm reminded of a recent NPR piece which blamed Trump for death
threats to people in the media. They claimed that the cry of "Fake news!"
inspires right wingers to kill. What's so hypocritical is that they ran pieces
comparing Trump to Hitler, which would be at least as likely to to inspire
violence against Trump, his party, & any perceived supporters.
Inflammatory speech is only wrong when the other tribe does it, eh.

I sort of touched on this in a long winded way in my previous post, but basically they're in panic mode constantly so feel they have the right to be irrational because they are.

However, none of them are sensible enough to realize that real activism is doing things to help rather than hurt. Yelling at people and convicting them of racism or fascism isn't going to yield the results they desire. It's just going to make people who value tradition or logic ignore them.

 

[Kapalika]

None of this actually matters, since this is just a weak genetic logical fallacy/ad hominem. It doesn't refute any assertion simply because it is printed on websites that you are not allowed to read, or recognize as authentic. They could print 99% garbage and still be right directly in the context of the single articles presented.

It's simply the "don't trust that news" because it doesn't fit "my personal confirmation bias" argument. Doesn't work, not at all.

Are you saying that white nationalists are beacons of honest journalism? I'm arguing from track records. The fact that the vast majority of the sources are heavily biased in an extreme direction is an indication that we can't take the sources at face value.

I actually advocated for NEUTRAL sources. So if anything I'm arguing AGAINST any bias.

But of course conservatives like to twist the truth like you are doing here.

 

[Kapalika]

Looking back, you literally took me entirely out of context with your quote too. I said to check a source's reputation and compare it to neutral sources that don't have any discernible bias. I gave Reuters as an example since most of what they do is gather information and rely it.

I didn't say to just dismiss a source because of the bias, but to recognize that and then compare it to neutral sources. White nationalists gain from outraging their base and bending the truth a lot. They do this a lot and so one should keep it in mind and give their claims extra scrutiny due to that track record.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you saying that white nationalists are beacons of honest journalism? I'm arguing from track records. The fact that the vast majority of the sources are heavily biased in an extreme direction is an indication that we can't take the sources at face value.

I actually advocated for NEUTRAL sources. So if anything I'm arguing AGAINST any bias.

But of course conservatives like to twist the truth like you are doing here.

The ones I checked, when you check their sources, you get more details and a different story, such as the gym that it turns out didn't ditch the scale because it was triggering students, but rather because they felt there were better ways to measure health.

 

[Kapalika]

The ones I checked, when you check their sources, you get more details and a different story, such as the gym that it turns out didn't ditch the scale because it was triggering students, but rather because they felt there were better ways to measure health.

See! Someone gets what I'm saying!

Take notes, @Mindmaster !

 

[Mindmaster]

Are you saying that white nationalists are beacons of honest journalism? I'm arguing from track records. The fact that the vast majority of the sources are heavily biased in an extreme direction is an indication that we can't take the sources at face value.

I actually advocated for NEUTRAL sources. So if anything I'm arguing AGAINST any bias.

But of course conservatives like to twist the truth like you are doing here.

I'm saying you don't refute them by painting them as a stereotypical KKK member. Whether they are racist or not has nothing to do with whether they are correct or not on other issues. It's just diversionary and evading a real discussion of the topic. Track record isn't enough either, each contention exists independently - it's true or false based on evidence. There is absolutely nothing that exists that is a "neutral" source of news only honest or not. (by the writers belief system/intention) Everyone has an opinion, and few people separate themselves from it when writing. It doesn't mean they're all lying, but maybe do not share your belief system.

I call you out on straw manning and then you do it to me personally with the bolded line. Why don't you just replace that line with, "But of course sneaky Jews like to twist the truth like you are doing here."? Maybe you can see my point here, or maybe you can't. I hope you can, so you stop doing this.

 

[Stanyon]

More people die to the KKK than to foreign terrorists every year.

Support your lie with facts

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Okay, so is it going to be defined as suppression of free speech now to set up the standard of humanity and rights, and argue that people ought to care when they make others feel worthless and mentally torment them? Is that about the size of it? Because to me that is right-wing typically Christians patting evil on the back, when they claim to oppose it. I offer as a counter point that modern society only finds 'PC' so offensive because of the extreme idea of individual that's been pushed- that in lieu of responsibility to one another like an actual society, individuals should be able to say or do whatever they want and not get criticism for it.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Great article. I particularly liked this idea: "If students cannot handle the challenge without crying that they feel unsafe, they should not be at university in the first place. If universities refuse to challenge them, I wonder about their usefulness too."

When the state gives college to citizens for free then they can determine what students should be forced to listen to and allow on campuses. Is that fair enough? I paid for college. I shouldn't have gotten a say about the services I paid for?

 

[Mindmaster]

Okay, so is it going to be defined as suppression of free speech now to set up the standard of humanity and rights, and argue that people ought to care when they make others feel worthless and mentally torment them? Is that about the size of it? Because to me that is right-wing typically Christians patting evil on the back, when they claim to oppose it. I offer as a counter point that modern society only finds 'PC' so offensive because of the extreme idea of individual that's been pushed- that in lieu of responsibility to one another like an actual society, individuals should be able to say or do whatever they want and not get criticism for it.

Both political parties are beholden to the elites, and the elites want slaves. They're willing to give you anything that costs them nothing for your servitude, but they want to take all of the rest. They'll give you the right to not be offended, so long as you are stupid enough to use that right to constantly torture each other and ignore the sick **** they're doing.