you can't be sure of any situation, something could change and then you won't know (part two)

(Continued from part one.)

We pick up in media res:

[8:23 PM] Iron: What's a better way to indicate that there are a quite a number of people that act this way, feeding off of each other in groups? I'm not dismissing that it exists, I'm using a term to indicate what the term itself means as a definition. It is a way of being that groups of people have chosen to operate as, and they bolster each other by doing so in those groups. It is what the groups are focused around. It is their culture.
[8:26 PM] Iron: What is a better term to reference a group of people that operate in the same manner and strengthen each other's chosen way of being? Outrage Group Methodology?
[8:27 PM] Iron: If it's the term that is the issue, I am open to a different one. But it seems to apply fairly accurately as a definition of a culture that is about being outraged.
[8:29 PM] Iron: If a person or a group of people is about making change and improving things, then outrage is not their culture, it is a tool.
[8:30 PM] Iron: But when something or someone does change and improve and that is not recognized and people continue just being outraged on the subject, then at that point they have become part of a group that is focused on outrage over improvement.
[8:36 PM] Fermium: But it seems to apply fairly accurately as a definition of a culture that is about being outraged.
[8:36 PM] Fermium: That sentiment is the issue, not the term itself. That it's a culture that is about being outraged, when the truth is often more it's a culture that is outraged. They don't exist to be outraged, they are outraged. There is no way to really term them, people have different reasons.
[8:37 PM] Fermium: Plus, again, this goes back to the term itself yes, but Outrage Culture isn't a specific group of people. It's everyone. It's the same as people calling Millenials the 'Participation Awards' culture. If there are a specific group or even just people who, unrelatedly, are often at the forefront of these issues and being outraged, then that really is a different thing.
[8:38 PM] Fermium: And we have a term for that.
[8:38 PM] Fermium: It's Social Justice Warrior.
[8:40 PM] Fermium: We saw what happened there. The term got used so often to become meaningless, which let it be reclaimed as a thing to be proud of unrelated to the original meaning of a 'keyboard warrior' type.

Okay, so, are the terms "Social Justice Warrior" and "Outrage Warrior" interchangeable terms? If so, then I'm as guilty of labeling as anyone else. Is there enough differentiation between them that they indicate different things? How I originally heard SJW as an insult, and used SJW as an insult, was specifically that group of individuals who wanted to be offensive in their own opinions while objecting to other people being offensive. Is that the same thing as "Outrage Warrior"? And where does cancel culture come in, because I know that is a presence in today's society (again, at least American culture, though there is evidence this is creeping into English culture as well).

[8:41 PM] Iron: I need a term for when groups of people are outraged beyond the point in time of the company/person having done their due to fix/address their action. Because that is a thing that happens, I can find much proof if required.
[8:41 PM] Iron: What term should I use?

That does seem to be the question.

[8:42 PM] Iron: It would help if it would also apply to people that are overly outraged over minor things, because that is also a thing although is obviously more opinion based. But my opinions are valid as well so terms to explain them are helpful.
[8:45 PM] Iron: As an aside, I'm not convinced SJW was reclaimed. It just means different things to different people at this point I believe.
[8:46 PM] Iron: Justice, of a social nature or otherwise, as a concept is a good thing though. So I don't use it as an insult myself. Justice is good.
[8:47 PM] Iron: So is fighting for it. It's never really made much sense as an insult imo.

But the original term arose as an insult, it was never used as a complimentary term on Tumblr, and it definitely was never used in a complimentary sense off Tumblr. So in what sense does it not make sense as a dismissive, insulting term?

[8:48 PM] Fermium: I don't think you need a term. Just say, "I think those people are overreacting" "I understood their point, but it's time for them to let it go."
[8:49 PM] Fermium: And the truth is, you're sort of still dictating whether someone can be angry or not about something. You disagree, or have a different perspective/morals/beliefs. That's all.
[8:49 PM] Fermium: You can't really find Objective evidence of people staying outraged too long, only subjective evidence that most people might agree with. But maybe they won't! And that's okay.

To be fair, constant outrage, even constant anger, is exhausting. Harlan Ellison used to say in interviews that what kept him going was going to sleep every night angry, and waking up every morning angry. But he carried a ton of stress from that, and had several heart attacks, which I believe were at least partially caused from that level of constant anger/rage/irritation. It's not good for us, long-term, to stay angry.

[8:53 PM] Iron: you're sort of still dictating whether someone can be angry or not about something I'm dictating what my opinion is on someone acting that way. I need to be clearer on that, apparently. But the things I say are from my opinion, I know that. People can act however they want, I can't change how people are allowed to act. But I can point out why it's harmful to do so, if I can get someone to agree on what is and isn't harmful. Which is another matter as well of course.

That first sentence was slightly cumbersome to read, but what I believe was intended here is, the person protesting about this person dictating how others should feel, is now dictating how this person should feel about that. And it's a fair point--asking someone to feel a certain way is one thing; telling someone to feel a certain way is attempting to impose our own will, ethics, ideals, upon that other person.

[8:53 PM] Iron: There are enough people overreacting frequently enough that a term is useful. But even without that term if I just say they are overreacting I will get called out exactly the same for being dismissive, so I don't think that would fix the issue of using the term outrage culture or not.

Truth.

[8:54 PM] Iron: Allowed isn't really the same thing as okay, sort of. Depending on what counts as "okay". Being continually angry no matter what causes harm and isn't okay in my opinion. But it is allowed.
[8:55 PM] Iron: Okay is a bit weird that way, in how flexible it is.
[8:55 PM] Iron: Pretty useful, but also not great for strict definitions.
[8:56 PM] Iron: Maybe a better way for me to put it is that it is "okay" but not "good". Yeah, that fits better. You're right, it's okay that they can have that opinion, but the opinion itself is harmful (from my viewpoint) and (to me) that is not then okay. It is harmful. Not the ability to have the opinion, that is good, but the opinion itself.

That is a better way to put it, I think.

[8:57 PM] Iron: Thinking on it more, the issue I have with calling it just "overreacting" is that that misses out on the group aspect of it.
[8:57 PM] Iron: And that's an important part.
[8:58 PM] Iron: If it's just one person doing so, then yeah, that works.
[8:58 PM] Iron: But it's this whole thing where one person bolsters each other's anger, and it builds up and keeps going.
[8:59 PM] Iron: So it is overreacting, yes, but there's a whole group pushing each other along that goes with it that is important to the situation's description as well to include.

Ah, so we're back to mob mentality, again, which I also address below.

[9:03 PM] Platinum: [Iron] gets it, again.
[9:03 PM] Emilly Orr: I also think people are missing the lesson that Liam is presenting, with that story.
[9:03 PM] Platinum: they are.
[9:04 PM] Emilly Orr: Every person is one bad day away from snapping. Everyone. His bad day was when a friend was raped, and he went crazy for a week. Most school shooters reach that tipping point. Dylann Roof very nearly didn't shoot up the church he shot up, even though he'd gone in that church specifically TO shoot it up, because they were "so nice".
[9:04 PM] Emilly Orr: He did it anyway.
[9:04 PM] Emilly Orr: But everyone has the mob in them. Every single one of us.
[9:06 PM] Platinum: but yes, as [Iron] said, we're not dictating what people can be angry about. I don't have the power or authority to dictate anything to anyone. And even if I did have the power to dictate and tell them to shut up, and they would have to, I don't think I would do that, necessarily.
[9:06 PM] Fermium: sighs.

Frustration was starting to show, yes, because there was cross-chatter, which lends itself easily to the possible perception that one is not being heard as well as they perhaps could be heard.

[9:08 PM] Iron: Sometimes I word things in such a manner so that they come across as commands dictating how someone else should act.
[9:08 PM] Iron: It's not what I mean, it's how I would like the other person to act.
[9:08 PM] Iron: But it does sometimes come out as a command instead and that's my bad.
[9:08 PM] Emilly Orr: I don't think I've received that message when you do a deep dive into some topic.
[9:08 PM] Platinum: they're allowed to put what they want out there, and I'm allowed to be frustrated by it because it's harmful.

Yes to both--we are a disparate group of friends, with some disparate views on society and morality. Sometimes things do get heated, because we are coming from such different places on occasion. But by and large, that's the one thing we hold to--we are allowed to say what we feel, others are allowed to say what they feel, and if we disagree, well, we're going to from time to time.

[9:09 PM] Iron: I try to avoid it but I make mistakes, especially when I don't re-read something before I put it out there. Thank you, Emi, I'm glad to hear that.
[9:10 PM] Platinum: and if using terms like outrage culture or outrage warriors helps me to put a term onto what's frustrating to me, I'm allowed to do that too.
[9:10 PM] Iron: It is helpful to know how it's being interpreted by others though, of course.
[9:10 PM] Iron: In case I end up needing to explain what I meant by it, if there's a misinterpretation.
[9:11 PM] Platinum: sure. and I have no problem defining precisely what I mean by it if needed. as I have.
[9:11 PM] Iron: So I do appreciate knowing that it's sometimes coming across as dismissing someone's ability to be outraged over a matter entirely, or whatnot.
[9:11 PM] Iron: Yeah.
[9:13 PM] Emilly Orr: And [Platinum], you are. Outrage culture is killing us.
[9:14 PM] Platinum: I are?
[9:14 PM] Emilly Orr: Right. You are right in naming it a backlash reaction from outrage warriors, from the cancel culture movement.
[9:15 PM] Platinum: ah, ok. was confused for a moment :p
[9:15 PM] Emilly Orr: nods
[9:15 PM] Fermium: You can dictate without power. Understand that. If I tell you that your lack of belief in God is a sin. I'm dictating that to you. You can disagree, you can be angry, you can ignore me. But I am dictating it.
[9:15 PM] Fermium: There isn't a way to address a group of people who are angry about something you disagree with that isn't dismissive. All you can do is say "I don't get those people." or "I disagree with them and condemn what they are doing."

So what's a better way to address it? Some statements are always going to come off as addressed to the group at large, either a group we know or a group of unknowns that share one or two traits. Should we only communicate, one on one, to specific individuals, and leave group dynamics entirely out of it?

[9:15 PM] Fermium: It's like the Conservatives who basically dismissed the people who said we should boycott Chik-Fil-A. They thought they were overreacting, being outraged about something stupid. They dismissed them and dictated to them that they were wrong for feeling the way.
[9:16 PM] Fermium: There isn't another way to honestly take that.
[9:16 PM] Fermium: Now, understand, I'm not saying you can't. I've never once said you couldn't. I am just trying to make aware that it is dismissive, and if you are okay with that, then fine. Everyone has their own morals and limits. Me, I find dismissal more harmful than engagement, which isn't to say there aren't times outright dismissing someone is good. And that does apply to both sides. There are people who don't want to engage, and that's fine too.
[9:16 PM] Fermium: My point is, understand what you are saying, intent or not, when you stereotype or lump varying people who might all have their own different reasons together as 'Overreactors' or 'Outrage Warriors'.

And I acknowledge this is a correct statement. It's not as ultimately dismissive as name-calling, but it is dismissive, it does group people into easily ignorable/dismissable sections of society, and that makes it easier for us to at least temorarily lower their social status as individuals in our view. And we have enough problems with social striation as it is.

[9:16 PM] Fermium: The only people I personally hate are those that lie, spread misinformation, and outright manipulate to stoke those same feelings. Which, guess what, is often what Conservatives do. See any Conservative Talk Radio. See Trump and his 'Fake News'.
[9:16 PM] Iron: I feel bad for Fawkes I feel like he's trying to catch up to responding to all the things we're saying b-
[9:16 PM] Iron: Oh good, there we go, got it out.

That is one of the only problems with this chat service--since all streams are saved as one single "thread", so to speak, of any given conversation, there can be issues where separation between thoughts is more difficult than it needs to be. Now, one answer to that is to further define sub-servers to address specific issues. One friend of mine, on his sub-server, further defines the groups on that server to include things like internet/computer security issues, cute animals, positive news, depressing news, and nightmare fuel, among others. (And yes, he set up the nightmare fuel section for me. Is anyone surprised?)

[9:20 PM] Platinum: it all comes down to harm. I can point out why the conservatives are wrong in that boycotting chik-fil-a is overreacting and wrong to feel that way. because the money going to chik-fil-a is known to end up going to groups that engage in harmful actions/lobbying against LGBTQ people.
[9:22 PM] Platinum: in the same way, I can point out the harm that people just being outraged and only caring about the outrage, or continuing the outrage after a person/group/company/whatever recognizes the issue in their actions and works to correct it. or in cases like Liam, being outraged at them for coming out and admitting to something they recognize as terrible and feel shame over. because it will stop other people from doing the same for fear of being the next target of undue outrage, and maybe having their life ruined over something it shouldn't be.
[9:24 PM] Platinum: and yes, the people that lie, purposely spread misinformation, refuse to be corrected and continue to spread the same misinformation, and especially which falsely continue to stoke outrage for whatever reason, are particularly despicable, and I likewise would hate such people.
[9:26 PM] Platinum: if saying they're outrage warriors or part of outrage and cancel culture is dismissive, then it is I suppose. I only see it as disagreeing with them. But I'm also not on most social media and not looking to engage and have lengthy debates with strangers over why I see their actions as the wrong thing to do. I don't want my life to be about that, at this stage.
[9:27 PM] Platinum: my initial statements were a simple statement of frustration over these things among a group of friends which I assumed could understand those feelings, whether or not they agreed with them.
[9:27 PM] Fermium: [Platinum]. Tell me. [Iron] too, or anyone.
[9:27 PM] Fermium: What do you think would happen if a prominent Black actor. Denzel for instance. Came out and said how after his friend was shot by some white guy in 'self-defense' he walked the streets with a bat hoping to smash some white person's skull in?

He'd be crucified.

[9:28 PM] Fermium: Spoiler. The answer is he'd never have a job again. Liam Neeson is privileged. Even the outrage he is getting - and I'd agree, based on my current understanding of events, that it is misplaced - but even that outrage is honestly nothing much. He isn't going to get Mel Gibsoned, and even if he did, GUESS WHO IS ACTING AGAIN.
[9:29 PM] Fermium: You can't keep a good white boy down. Anti-Semitic [f*cking a**hole] or not.
[9:30 PM] Fermium: should have gone with Idris Elba.

It's not that Smith and Elba are interchangeable in any way, but I think the point is made just as easily with Smith as with Elba. Idris Elba is known for someone 'grittier' roles, as is Denzel Washington. Will Smith, on the other hand, made a rap career out of refusing to curse, and for the bulk of his acting, never made an R film, and very few PG-13 features. Even someone with that "clean" a reputation, so to speak, would still be crucified if he'd said the thing Liam Neeson said in that interview.

[9:30 PM] Platinum: that may be true. and would still be part of the same problem to me. and I would be just as upset at people getting outraged at Denzel(as the given example), as the people putting out the misplaced outrage toward Liam
[9:37 PM] Fermium: Oh hey, Ava DuVernay made the same point.

I'd also point to a response Ms. DuVernay got below that tweet:

"Somebody on here said a while ago that it's not even privilege. It's power. White power. The same stuff that fueled his desires to kill Black folks fuels the aparatus tapdancing to convince us it's no big deal or that he's a hero for not actually bludgeoning an innocent to death."

And that's kind of the main point, isn't it? The two camps seem to be somewhat evenly divided between "He didn't actually kill anyone, he's learned from that mistake" and "He COULD have easily killed someone, change or not, he nearly openly committed premeditated murder".

[9:44 PM] Fermium: is also, at the moment, far less convinced the outrage is 'misplaced.'
[9:44 PM] Fermium: https://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow/videos/liam-neesons-racist-confession/615436418885605/

I don't have Facebook, which means that some FB posts I can see, but most I can't, so I'm just leaving the link here and hoping it does, in face, reinforce the point that is being made.

[9:45 PM] Fermium: There are some very valid reasons why people are outraged about this, or at least, angry about it.
[9:45 PM] Fermium: Which means it isn't misplaced, it's just misunderstood.

And, I think this one is also getting long--we had a lot to say, hashing this out to some sort of vague conclusion--so I will be splitting this into a part three, which will likely be posted tomorrow.

(Continued in part three.)