Article.

Here's a choice quote for people who don't like reading articles:

All these questions about “disproportionate outrage” beg the question of where the boundaries were. People who presume that a football team recruited to be among the only black students on a vastly-white-majority white-run campus should be chill about swastikas painted in feces and hecklers running onstage shouting racial slurs presume a great deal. People who presume that these reported incidents are the only incidents–and that they know better than students on the campus about whether these incidents are just the foam on the tide of a generally racist culture–are presuming even more.

Is it outrageous for Quentin Tarantino to use the word “murder” at a #BlackLivesMatter protest to describe police shootings? Only if you think that shooting a 12-year-old child in cold blood and subsequently denying responsibility for it was not in and of itself outrageous. Is it outrageous to pass a law saying people can’t kick trans people out of restrooms for being trans? Only if you don’t think there’s anything outrageous about living in fear of harassment, fines or violent assault because you’re not sure if the way you dress and act makes you “feminine” enough for the ladies’ room or “masculine” enough for the men’s room.

So yes, I support or oppose “outrage” based on whether I think the outrage is legitimate or not, i.e., based on my political views, and I find nothing to be ashamed of in this–and I find the concern trolls who claim to be against “outrage” in the abstract to be disingenuous. I hold the positions I do because both numbers and experience bear out that people who celebrate Christmas, police officers, people who play video games, and white straight men are doing relatively fine, whereas racial minorities targeted by police and trans people smeared as sexual predators and regularly murdered and driven to suicide are not.