[laughinghan]

> Yes, the media manufactures outrage for attention. This is not the problem. The media has done the same for as long as it has existed. The problem is that real people are willing to believe and act upon this "outrage", sometimes in an extreme manner, to avoid being on the "wrong side".

This diagnosis is also too shallow. Just like people's belief and actions in response to "outrage" has varied over time, the media's sensationalism has varied over time, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

> Even the smallest infraction is justification for ruining lives. [...] Brendan Eich was ousted from his position at Mozilla for his donation years ago. A pizzeria owner was threatened with death for merely saying he wouldn't serve gays. The mob retaliations are completely disproportionate to the "crime".

These don't strike me as compelling examples. Brendan Eich (whom, for the record, I did not think should be ousted and said so at the time in HN discussions) was not ousted for minding his own business making a private donation, that is a misrepresentation. He was ousted because of his defense of his donation, and even if that ruined his life, he was in a position to affect a lot of lives, and it's reasonable (even if we disagree with them) for people to think it's unfortunate but necessary.

As for "A pizzeria owner was threatened with death for merely saying he wouldn't serve gays."---gays receive threats of death and violence, and actual death and violence, for merely being gay, and while there've been spikes in response to e.g. Obergefell, this has generally been decreasing, fortunately. So, a death threat in response to explicit prejudice doesn't really make the point that the mob is worsening.

[kelukelugames]

I dug through Eich's story. He was ousted for his donation. I saw no mention of a defense and only people calling for his head because of the donation. Would you have links for reactions to his defense?

Also, the parent argument is that death threats are a disproportionate response, not that they're new.

[laughinghan]

    [Eich] was ousted for his donation. I saw no mention of a defense and
    only people calling for his head because of the donation.

You're right, I was oversimplifying, because he was very careful not to actually say anything of substance when he defended his donation. I think my point stands, however: he wasn't ousted in retaliation for the donation. People called for his ousting because of how the donation and more importantly, subsequent non-apology non-defense reflected on his current, at-the-time-of-being-promoted-to-CEO views, and how they'd affect his performance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7460030 That's not retaliation or outrage, that's relevant and important concern about his ability to do his job as CEO of Mozilla.

    Also, the parent argument is that death threats are a disproportionate response, not that they're new.

Also, I think it's very clear the grandparent was talking about a new/increasing level of disproportionate.

> a population that increasingly cannot tell the difference between words and violence

> That's why people are afraid of the new outrage.

And, of course, the grandparent was a direct response to the original article where "new"-ness was part of the main point:

Tagline:

> People are so sensitive these days!

Opening sentence:

> Is the world more easily “outraged” than it used to be?

Conclusion:

> So is the world any more “outraged” than it’s always been?