4 ms·

Of those that have made a difference, the majority are via laws, which was parent's point.

• wolverine876 5y ago
  The GP says, > Todays outrage is managed ressource going nowhere. I'm saying that it definitely went somewhere, it created major changes, including laws.
  • ethbr0 5y ago
    > History shows that outrage does something, when it turns into laws. Todays outrage is managed ressource going nowhere.
    • wolverine876 5y ago
      Maybe we're reading it differently? I read: 'Historically, outrage has accomplished things by resulting in laws. Today's outrage is ineffectual because it isn't resulting in laws.'
      • PicassoCTs 5y ago
        This is what i ment. Sorry for being imprecise. I would argue, that this is actually the goal of todays outrage culture- not to change things for the better within the legal framework of a democracy, but to keep the emotional core of a "movement" going.
        • wolverine876 5y ago
          > I would argue, that this is actually the goal of todays outrage culture- not to change things for the better within the legal framework of a democracy, but to keep the emotional core of a "movement" going. I agree about the priority: It's a reactionary, ideological culture/movement; they need to be against something; members need to demonstrate their ideological adherence by being more and more extreme. Passing outrageous laws can be part of that. Passing constructive laws by bringing people to the table, listening to their needs, and creating consensus would indeed undermine the movement, IMHO.