Is Anger Our New Entertainment?

We will be at Southeast Regional Library in Room C

About the Group: This is a friendly Socratic Café where we explore big ideas through open conversation. No philosophy background is needed, just curiosity, respect, and a willingness to share and listen.

## Theme 1: Why Does Outrage Feel So Good?

1. When people say they feel “fired up” or “energized” by online conflict, what exactly is the feeling they are chasing—and what might they be avoiding?
2. In what ways can being outraged make someone feel morally superior, and how might that sense of superiority secretly be part of the appeal?
3. How do you personally tell the difference between caring deeply about an issue and becoming addicted to the emotional rush of being upset about it?
4. Can outrage sometimes function like a form of entertainment or stress relief, even when we insist it is purely about justice and principle?
5. How might constant exposure to others’ anger change the baseline of what feels “normal” or “acceptable” intensity in everyday life?

## Theme 2: Algorithms, Attention, and Responsibility

1. If platforms benefit from conflict because it keeps people engaged, how much responsibility do individuals still bear for the outrage they participate in or spread?
2. When you know that certain posts will “do numbers” precisely because they provoke anger, how does that knowledge shape what you choose to share—or not share?
3. Is it realistic to expect people to “just log off” when the whole attention economy is designed to keep emotions high and nuanced reflection low?
4. At what point does consuming one more heated thread or video stop being “staying informed” and become a kind of moral voyeurism?
5. How would online spaces look different if algorithms were tuned to reward curiosity and uncertainty as much as they reward outrage and certainty?

## Theme 3: Outrage, Identity, and Belonging

1. How does joining in on shared outrage help people feel like they belong to a group, and what might be the cost of that emotional solidarity?
2. In what ways can a person’s political or moral identity become tied to always having a strong opinion, even when the situation is complex or unfamiliar?
3. When your “side” is involved, what makes it harder to notice when your own group is enjoying the pile-on more than actually seeking understanding or change?
4. How might fear of being labeled disloyal, insensitive, or “problematic” keep people from asking genuine questions or expressing uncertainty?
5. What does it take for someone to step back from a shared outrage moment and ask, “What if we’re missing something important here?”

## Theme 4: Moral Imagination in an Age of Conflict

1. How might constant exposure to simplified villains and heroes online narrow our ability to imagine the complicated reasons people believe what they do?
2. When we consume clips of people at their worst moments, how does that shape the way we picture entire groups, professions, or generations?
3. What kinds of stories or conversations expand moral imagination, and what kinds shrink it down to “my team good, your team bad”?
4. Is there a healthy role for anger in public life that doesn’t slide into spectacle—if so, what would it actually look and feel like in practice?
5. How could a community tell whether its members are using outrage to pursue justice or using justice language to justify their love of outrage?