This explains 99.9% of Liberals: When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don't affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as "moral outrage"—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one's own status as a Very Good Person. Outrage expressed "on behalf of the victim of [a perceived] moral violation" is often thought of as "a prosocial emotion" rooted in "a desire to restore justice by fighting on behalf of the victimized," explain Bowdoin psychology professor Zachary Rothschild and University of Southern Mississippi psychology professor Lucas A. Keefer in the latest edition of Motivation and Emotion. Yet this conventional construction—moral outrage as the purview of the especially righteous—is "called into question" by research on guilt, they say. Triggering feelings of personal culpability for a problem increases moral outrage at a third-party target. The more guilt over one's own potential complicity, the more desire "to punish a third-party through increased moral outrage at that target." Having the opportunity to express outrage at a third-party decreased guilt in people threatened through "ingroup immorality." "The opportunity to express moral outrage at corporate harm-doers" inflated participants perception of personal morality. Guilt-induced moral outrage was lessened when people could assert their goodness through alternative means, "even in an unrelated context." http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/moral-outrage-is-self-serving
I think an incredible percentage of inflammatory crap, liberal and conservative, comes from people with anger issues. I've encountered more than my share. Their unpleasantness, unfortunately, isn't confined to the political realm. People who don't think much of themselves tend to assume others have only the basest motivation.
Or as it's been aptly coined these days..."virtue signaling". Hollywood is the king of this phony savior garbage. They literally have PR agencies that help entertainers find a popular cause that best fits tragic circumstances while maximizing the benefactor's public image. Typically it's the most popular overseas injustice of the moment. Rarely do you see a big pitch to solve hunger or homelessness that even plagues their own area. They also do very little to help vets who sacrificed their own livelihood to protect the freedoms and extravagant lifestyles of these types.
No doubt. I've often thought to myself "why don't Oprah, M.Jordan, JayZ and other wealthy African Americans pool their money and start a VC firm that will focus on increasing AA's in business". IMO, that sort of effort would do worlds more good for impoverished black communities than all the protesting and political grandstanding. Not that the three I listed have been particularly egregious at grandstanding, they just have more cash and cache than most people. It's right there in front of them. Immediate impact. They would simultaneously prove that black people have the skills and capacity, and create a substantial black middle class which would perpetuate itself for future generations. And no one would dare raise a finger to keep them from giving preferential lending to black entrepreneurs and black communities.
Lol. I know why they don't do that. Oprah and Jordan (I don't follow people who don't have first and last names, so I'm not familiar with JayZ.) are generous people, but when it comes to business (and therefore not getting a tax deduction for their efforts), the only color they know is green. Besides, why take the risk when the government will take it for them?
