So often, the phrase outrage culture (or the outrage machine) is lobbed by conservatives or liberals toward advocates of social justice (SJWs) who speak out online about subjects that get them, well, outraged. I’ve yet to see the phrase defined in a consistent manner, but it is often deployed by those who think that SJWs are sitting around on their computers just waiting for the latest story to get outraged about. And when that story hits, critics say, these irate activists will take to social media to express their anger, disapproval, and/or frustration. They’ll feverishly type away at their computer to produce condemnatory screeds directed at their latest target-usually a public figure who has made statements they find questionable or offensive. In a way, that’s what happens. But the critics of outrage culture use the phrase derisively. They’re mocking people who-in their eyes-are looking for reasons to get offended. They’re complaining that the “delicate flowers who are permanently aroused” are limiting free speech. And they’re characterizing those who express their anger and frustration online as “[…] an increasingly reactionary mob of self-centered narcissists who all have their own personal lines drawn in the sand”. That last one was from an article at Time, in which the author attempts to minimize and dismiss the anger felt by online critics while also declaring them unable to focus on multiple topics. This post is an attempt on my part to both understand where the critics of outrage culture are coming from, as well as formulate my thoughts on why it is a good and necessary thing.
