[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?