Sincere caring in a time of uber outrage and the urgency of being liked

Caring in a Time of Uber-Outrage and the Urgency of Being Liked A notoriously outraged state premier crusades in parliament, and on radio, for some “stolen” Greek art (the Elgin Marbles) to be returned by the British Museum, and calls it an “outrageous injustice.” That premier is later found to have “accidentally” stolen a painting (of a not very attractive former conservative premier) from the Victorian parliament – he does not regard this as theft, but “just borrowing” Or - a prime minister is “totally and absolutely disgusted and outraged” by an art exhibition of photos of semi-naked adolescents – and views it as a damaging and “flagrant invitation for perverts to leer at exploited and vulnerable youth.” That PM is later found to have visited a strip club in the US, and to have been responsible for damaging or killing under-trained young electrical workers through a hurried, somewhat manic attempt to supercharge the Australian economy These are just a couple of local examples – but, the tale of the crusading, outraged conservative politician being revealed as having a far from conservative private life is a very familiar one So one might be allowed some valid cynicism in linking a kind of crusading, confected, hyper-outrage to a projection onto other evil-doers of one’s own shortcomings and culpabilities In fact, the main thing about highly exaggerated, almost theatrical moral outrage is that it attempts to shift guilt onto a related, but seemingly more important issue (and culprit) as a way of avoiding one's own conscience Although the process seems to remain largely unconscious to the projective perpetrator – so that they indeed seem to be, and often are, sincere in their melodramatic finger-pointing The hallmark of this sort of diverted guilt subjugation through moral outrage is: It is exaggerated in its hysterical melodramatic imploring The accuser does not actually have to anything more to rectify the situation (For example, the ease of scoffing in outrage at a Rolf Harris or Bill Cosby rather than thinking seriously about the commoditization of youth through hyper-sexualizing, or the mindless idealization and privileging of celebrities, as serious social problems that we must all take some responsibility for in shaping and changing our society.) The accuser is always seen as pristine white and an upstanding, dutiful citizen - full of moral superiority, and deserving of a lasting fame in high office of some sort – or, even more enviable, worthy of being “liked” And, technology makes even the finger-pointing effortless - the finger need now to only drop itself onto a symbol saying "send" and the accuser/revelationist can export their guilt into another dimension, whilst being praised for "caring" But keep in mind that I am referring here only to the serial revelationist who becomes addicted to extreme moral outrage – the white-knuckled (ban the filth!) Whitehouse who become a cause and spearhead unto themselves And yet - to turn the coin over - from a sociological perspective, moral outrage often accumulates around a fault-line of moral uncertainty or ambivalence about a too rigidly, and now questioned, contentious value – such as the current focus on differing views about gay marriage – and can be very valuable as a gauge of variety and intensity of feeling around controversial moral issues where the ground may be shifting Some well-timed moral outrage against morally outrageous social policy (imprisoning of refugees or subjugation of human rights, for example) is much needed as a catalyst to important societal change, and need not necessarily be “narcissism with characteristics of caring.” And surely a shame-inducing whack on the social media bum is still better than burning “witches”, and it can be a great service to society to have a real-time updating of our outrages to help reinforce our necessary boundaries? (Talk-back radio is super-saturated with such outrage outpouring.) Well yes - sort of But that forgets the great human conflicts and flux around social change, such as when to question and change a no longer useful (or cruel and retrogressive) social norm, and when to protect it ? When to question a supposed leap forward that will induce pain and suffering, and even the destruction of great swathes of nature and its habitat and when to march and to yell in the name of “progress” One (almost poetic) illustration of the complexity of such conflict is brought to mind by remembering the old (1960's) gossip rag called The Truth (newspaper) It both drummed up moral outrage (reveling in photos and scandal) and also became a target for it, with its scant regard for, yes - Truth (we all learned to see the name as ironic) But, is the "new media" any worse, or better? Or is it just an updated version? For better and for worse, but superbly (and disgustingly) Darwinian in its adaptation to larger populations and their rapidly unstable fault-lines of moral uncertainty, social media moral outrage has – for all its frightening (but short-lived) power – given us some manner of charting the volcanic and fickle eruptions of individual terror in the face of the overwhelming instincts of the herd Little wonder then that all over the world individuals are screaming for validation, demanding to be heard by the herd Should we be too outraged by that? Neil Maizels 2017 ... a supposed leap forward that will induce pain and suffering, and even the destruction of great swathes of nature and its habitat and when to march and to yell in the name of “progress” One (almost... better and for worse, but superbly (and disgustingly) Darwinian in its adaptation to larger populations and their rapidly unstable fault-lines of moral uncertainty, social media moral outrage has... societal change, and need not necessarily be “narcissism with characteristics of caring. ” And surely a shame-inducing whack on the social media bum is still better than burning “witches”, and it can