“These are serious times and they call for a serious debate…spare me all the phony outrage. Spare me all the phony talk about change.”
I’d name the politician who said that, but it would spoil the suspense.
I have to say, though, that I enjoy phony outrage, and I don’t understand why people are so upset about it. Are they actually, legitimately, outraged by phony outrage? I suppose they might be, but that’s only one possibility.
I may be missing something, but right now I’m seeing four possibilities:
phony outrage over phony outrage phony outrage over legitimate outrage legitimate outrage over phony outrage; and legitimate outrage over legitimate outrage.
It’s easy for anyone to say “My outrage is legitimate, but yours is phony.”
But how are we to determine whether the outrage in question is phony or legitimate?
I’d call for an outrageous litmus test, but that would be outrageous. And phony.
Hmmm…
Maybe I should issue a real call for phony change.
Comments
4 responses to “My outrage is more legitimate than yours!”
I’m outraged at your outrage!
You’re outraged but I am outraged as well. I am as outraged as you are. Just don’t say that you are more outraged than I am, because I am capable of being just as outraged as you are. So we’re both outraged, alright?
It’s nice to be outraged!
It’s all an etymological mistake.
Outrage comes from French outre, beyond what is proper.
It’s made into a noun with -age. English sees the rage in this outre-age and claims that what is beyond the proper deserves rage, the word itself says so.
Whole political movements are based on it.
This is so useful that it was reimported back into French.
McCain’s aim is to get the Obama clip into the news where women can see it.
Women think that Obama means well even if he talks nonsense, and have given him a pass on illogic.
The clip shows Obama as mean-spirited. That’s fatal with women, even if illogicalness is not, and there go those votes.