Outrage is a form of cultural pollution? So no one should ever be outraged by peoples actions? Or only in the right circumstances? Who gets to say when its justified, if ever?
On the 21st century internet, an alarmingly large portion of it is. Some outrage is justified, clearly. However, the incentive structures online are so extremely skewed in favor of producing outrage, we need a new form of skepticism. I was once outraged by the notion, "Pics, or it didn't happen!" But on reflection, I realized that the new incentive structures made the rewarding of internet fakery far too likely. Young people, realizing this, reacted in a rational way!
As with "pics or it didn't happen" this is going to be hard for many to hear, but there needs to be a more rational approach online. As it is, the lowered bar for producing online commentary and media has meant a general drop in quality, and this extends to commentary and media produced for activism and activism itself.
That's true. I guess the difference is that outrage has a function, and can have a utility, so I don't think it's a good metaphor. Viewing it as just 'pollution' implies that it has no value. It's only 'pollution' to those who don't agree with the outrage.
That's true. I guess the difference is that outrage has a function, and can have a utility, so I don't think it's a good metaphor
CO2 is the best analogy. There needs to be a certain amount for the utility. Too much and too little are detrimental.
Viewing it as just 'pollution' implies that it has no value.
This is an all-or-nothing fallacy. It's the amount produced which is the issue in the analogy. In reality, there are also finer grained quality issues.
To further demonstrate the application of your fallacy, I would agree that there are problems with under-prosecution of certain crimes.
However, when the outrage which has reached a fever pitch such that people start calling for abrogation of Innocent Until Proven Guilty based on inherent characteristics, something has gone wrong. Our culture has known, since the times in which the Magna Carta was written, that the protection of the individual from arbitrary imprisonment and prosecution is essential to prevent totalitarian abuses of power.
Outrage is easy to over use, its over-use is readily rewarded and such over-use is clearly everywhere, even despite the fact that it's only the excesses of the "other side" that are easily discerned.
Not really. Pollution is uniformly unwanted by definition (without you changing the goalposts to CO2, which is naturally occurring, and the naturally occurring CO2 would not be considered as pollution, whereas human created CO2 would). In fact, let's stick with the wikipedia definition:
"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change."
Outrage, on the other hand, may be very much wanted, or even required. I'm not defending ALL outrage. I'm defending that some outrage may occasionally be warranted. You saw an all or nothing fallacy where there was none. To recap -
Argument: Outrage is cultural pollution.
My Response: All pollution is unwanted, some outrage may be occasionally wanted or warranted.
Your response: Saying pollution has no value is an all-or-nothing fallacy!
The worst kind of bad reasoning is the false accusation of a fallacy. Because the person making that claim should know better.
In fact, let's stick with the wikipedia definition:
"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change."
This is either an honest mistake or a pedagogical trick you're pulling. In the general point, I mean pollution in the sense people mean when they say something like "noise pollution." "Pollution" in my analogy (which isn't the same referent as above) would be excess CO2 -- in large enough quantities this is a bad thing, and everyone should know that fact. The validity of the underlying point really has nothing to do with your nitpick. Just substitute "bad thing" for that word in your head. Your whole argument vanishes, and my point remains.
Your response: ... is an all-or-nothing fallacy!...The worst kind of bad reasoning is the false accusation of a fallacy.
You do have an all or nothing fallacy, and your falsely claimed refutation is actually an irrelevant language nitpick. However, I don't find that a quarter as disturbing as the seeming attachment you have to outrage as some kind of tool for convincing others. That's not convincing. That's coercing.
On the 21st century internet, an alarmingly large portion of it is. Some outrage is justified, clearly. However, the incentive structures online are so extremely skewed in favor of producing outrage, we need a new form of skepticism. I was once outraged by the notion, "Pics, or it didn't happen!" But on reflection, I realized that the new incentive structures made the rewarding of internet fakery far too likely. Young people, realizing this, reacted in a rational way!
As with "pics or it didn't happen" this is going to be hard for many to hear, but there needs to be a more rational approach online. As it is, the lowered bar for producing online commentary and media has meant a general drop in quality, and this extends to commentary and media produced for activism and activism itself.