Anomalism
Diamond Member
- Dec 1, 2020
- 11,555
- 8,643
- 2,138
I’ve been noticing something about how people express outrage in high profile cases like Epstein.
On the surface, everyone agrees the act is horrific. Nobody is defending the crime. But if you look closer, a lot of the public conversation isn’t just about the wrongdoing itself. It’s also about signaling moral commitment.
People seem to compete over who can be the most outraged. Criticizing someone else’s outrage is often treated as morally suspect. The actual facts or deeper analysis sometimes get buried under louder declarations.
This isn’t automatically bad. The outrage often reflects genuine concern. But the louder it gets, the more it can feel like a performance layer over the actual moral concern. Part of it is audience management. People showing alignment, signaling values, or even calming some internal tension.
On the surface, everyone agrees the act is horrific. Nobody is defending the crime. But if you look closer, a lot of the public conversation isn’t just about the wrongdoing itself. It’s also about signaling moral commitment.
People seem to compete over who can be the most outraged. Criticizing someone else’s outrage is often treated as morally suspect. The actual facts or deeper analysis sometimes get buried under louder declarations.
This isn’t automatically bad. The outrage often reflects genuine concern. But the louder it gets, the more it can feel like a performance layer over the actual moral concern. Part of it is audience management. People showing alignment, signaling values, or even calming some internal tension.
