I've only skimmed this, and the content may be reasonable, but the false premise is the same as that of the ubiquitous "why are people surprised" commentary: St

I've only skimmed this, and the content may be reasonable, but the false premise is the same as that of the ubiquitous "why are people surprised" commentary: Strong reactions look like surprise. Sometimes people even say colloquially "I can't believe...". But a reaction's strength isn't necessarily due to surprise - it may just be due to the drama of the subject. If something awful keeps happening, it's good if you don't stop having a strong reaction to it, no matter how unsurprising it becomes. So, it's not surprise in such cases - it's anger/sadness. Unhelpfully, accusations of "surprise" are also an easy way for bad-faith actors to imply naivete. They will even contradict themselves by using the word "outrage" to describe the same "surprised" reaction, under the implication that "outrage" means "unjust/naive anger", when really "outrage" is often the right word, sans that unspoken implication. "Outrage" can be justified, and people can express it when they are not "surprised".