Ashley 'Dotty' Charles01 August 2020

Why Everyone Is Outraged - Ashley 'Dotty' Charles - #204

0Frameworks

20Insights

Insights & moments

The myth-busts, hot takes, explainers, and tools worth keeping.

Myth Buster· 3

Myth Buster08:30

There's No Metric System for What Deserves 'Cancellation'

Dotty argues that outrage culture treats wildly different transgressions the same way — lumping JK Rowling in with slave owners and minor celebrity gaffes under one 'cancelled' umbrella — because there's no actual threshold or scale being applied.

'Cancel culture' as a monolithic category is itself a myth, per Dotty
There's no metric system or threshold that determines what counts as 'cancelled'
A mass murderer and someone who mispronounced a pronoun can both trend in the same way
Everything gets flattened into the same reaction regardless of severity

“There's no metric system for outrage, there's no threshold that you pass and it's like okay, you get your badge — you are the outrage…”
Dotty · 09:00

“You could be trending number one if you're a mass murderer or if you've used somebody's pronoun wrong.”
Dotty · 09:30

#cancel-culture#social-media#myth-busting

Myth Buster24:30

Performative Allyship Is Often About the Ally, Not the Cause

Dotty argues that some of the most extreme 'ally' outrage — being offended on someone else's behalf about everything — is less about the actual cause and more about the ally trying to distance themselves from feeling privileged or complicit.

Some allies overcorrect by claiming offense at everything on a marginalized group's behalf
This can be self-serving — a way to negate discomfort with one's own privilege
She likens it to performative 'gap year' voluntourism
When outrage isn't rooted in genuine desire for change, it isn't sustainable

“If it's not rooted in a genuine desire for change, it's not sustainable.”
Dotty · 25:30

#allyship#virtue-signaling#activism

Myth Buster29:30

You Can't Police Someone Else's Outrage — Or Your Own Right to It

Dotty explains that outrage is inherently subjective and tied to lived experience: if you're not the target of a transgression (e.g. not trans, not Jewish), you can have empathy but you don't get to decide whether someone else's outrage on that topic is valid or excessive.

Outrage is subjective — something can offend one person deeply without reflecting another's lived experience
If you're not the target of a topic (e.g. not trans, not Jewish), it's not your place to judge whether the outrage is warranted
The book isn't a manual dictating correct outrage — it's a roadmap for self-reflection
Key ask: check with yourself whether there's real purpose/reasoning behind your outrage, rather than policing others'

“If you are not the target of a topic, or if you're not the person directly affected, it is not your place to determine whether…”
Dotty · 30:30

#cancel-culture#empathy#outrage

Hot Take· 1

Hot Take53:30

You Can't Judge Yesterday's Actions by Today's Rules — But You Can't Erase Them Either

Discussing Fawlty Towers, blackface, and old sitcoms, Dotty argues it's dangerous to judge historic content purely by modern standards, but she's equally against deleting or scrubbing that content — she believes it should remain as a record so society doesn't repeat the same mistakes.

Dotty: 'it's dangerous to judge the actions of yesterday by the rules of today'
She opposes deleting old shows (Fawlty Towers, Little Britain) — argues it lets creators off the hook and erases the lesson
Analogy: culture is a 'tapestry' — you can't just unstitch the ugly parts, they're part of what got us here
Counterpoint acknowledged: people who were the 'butt of the joke' in punch-down era media weren't empowered to object at the time

“It's dangerous to judge the actions of yesterday by the rules of today. Really, really dangerous.”
Dotty · 53:30

“I think it's actually a cop-out for the people that perpetuated those views... it's easy to yank Little Britain down and allow Matt Lucas and…”
Dotty · 55:00

#cancel-culture#media#history

Explainer· 8

Explainer04:30

Why Outrage Became a Social Currency

Dotty reads from her original 2018 Guardian article explaining how being outraged online functions as a form of social currency — it signals moral righteousness, lets people claim allegiance to causes, and proves they're 'woke' without requiring real cost or action.

Being outraged lets you claim the moral high ground and 'prove' you're principled
It's a way to jump on a bandwagon and pledge allegiance to whatever's trending
It signals you're following current affairs — from the comfort of your Instagram feed
The phrase: outrage 'has become currency'

“Being outraged allows you to take the moral high ground. It reaffirms your moral righteousness. It lets you say 'I am offended and therefore I…”
Dotty · 04:30

#outrage#social-media#virtue-signaling

Explainer06:00

Treat Outrage Like an Investment With a Return

Dotty extends the currency metaphor: outrage requires real emotional investment (time, energy, effort), and like any investment it should be aimed at generating a return — actual change — rather than spent aimlessly. She argues the problem isn't that people get outraged, it's that they don't seek any outcome from it.

Outrage is a genuine emotional investment — it takes time, energy and effort to engage
The civil rights movement and suffragettes are examples of outrage that generated real returns (legal/social change)
Problem: people throw outrage around without seeking any return on it
Every outrage exchange should have an end goal, or it's just 'barking at strangers'

“I think every outrage exchange should have an end goal. You should be seeking a return on your investment, otherwise you're just barking at strangers…”
Dotty · 07:00

#outrage#activism#social-change

Explainer11:00

The 'Fear of the Fence' Driving Knee-Jerk Takes

Dotty describes why people rush to pick a side rather than sit with uncertainty: sitting on the fence is perceived as apathy or disconnection, so people force themselves into a position quickly, then feel obligated to defend it even if it wasn't well thought through.

People avoid the 'middle ground' because it reads as being uninformed or apathetic
This forces snap side-picking, often without real judgment behind it
Once picked, people feel 'pigheadedly' compelled to defend that position to avoid looking wishy-washy
It's fine to say 'I don't know' or to withhold judgment until you've heard more

“People are so scared of that corridor of indecision that they quickly enter a room, and so we find ourselves just picking a side.”
Dotty · 12:00

#outrage#decision-making#online-discourse

Explainer13:30

'Performative Communication' — Why Outrage Is Often a PR Release

Referencing Sam Harris's term 'performative communication,' Dotty and Chris discuss how social media posts function as curated PR for the self — people project a highlight reel of moral positions rather than their genuine, messier views, because being outraged has become a way to look progressive.

Sam Harris coined 'performative communication' — a concept Dotty found phenomenal
Social feeds function like a personal PR release: 'this is who I am, this is what I stand for'
People become more concerned with seeming progressive than actually being progressive
Real humans shouldn't have fully predictable, 'cookie cutter' beliefs across every topic

“People become more concerned with seeming progressive than being progressive. It's more important that I'm seen to be like this as opposed to actually being…”
Dotty · 15:00

#social-media#virtue-signaling#identity

Explainer15:00

The Endorphin Rush Behind Public Outrage

Dotty explains the neuroscience angle covered in her book: publicly performing outrage triggers a biological endorphin rush from being agreed with and celebrated, which private, unwitnessed good acts don't provide — creating an incentive to perform morality loudly rather than act on it quietly.

Seeing likes/retweets rack up after posting a strong opinion is a genuine biological rush
Picking up litter alone in the street gives no such rush because no one saw it
Publicly shaming a company on video and getting rallied behind does give that rush
This is an innate need to be celebrated, weaponized by always-on social media

“We like to perform our goodness in front of a crowd. It becomes more important to be seen to be doing the thing as opposed…”
Dotty · 16:30

#neuroscience#social-media#psychology

Explainer22:00

Why We Attack Random Strangers Instead of Systems

Dotty explains that people gravitate toward attacking easy, reachable targets (a random tweeter) rather than the insurmountable systemic issue (government policy) because it feels like the only 'progress' within their control — even though it isn't really progress at all.

Big systemic issues (e.g. government policy) feel insurmountable to tackle directly
So people redirect that energy toward whatever IS within reach — e.g. a random person's tweet
This isn't done maliciously — people convince themselves this is a form of progress
Result: mob justice gets mistaken for social justice

“What's within reach is Judith_underscore_87 talking [nonsense], so we tackle that... because we feel as though that is some sort of progress.”
Dotty · 22:30

“We're quite convinced that mob justice is social justice. Quite often we conflate the two.”
Dotty · 23:00

#outrage#social-media#psychology

Explainer37:00

Why 'Fast' Beats 'Factual' in Outrage Culture

Dotty explains how the sheer speed of the internet means people form outraged judgments off a headline or a short out-of-context clip rather than the full story, because there simply isn't time to consume everything — and this drives much of today's misplaced outrage.

People form judgments off headlines/clickbait rather than reading the full article
Example given: a misleading headline about Chrissy Teigen and Jeffrey Epstein's jet
We're not built to consume the entire globe's news in real time
This speed-over-substance dynamic strips away critical thinking before judgment is formed

“People often find themselves wanting to be fast rather than factual.”
Dotty · 37:00

“It's this issue of speed which seems to have rid us of all our critical thinking.”
Dotty · 38:30

#media-literacy#clickbait#outrage

Explainer62:30

Why Nuanced Views Get Read as Weakness

Dotty explains how tribal identity politics punishes nuance: holding a view that doesn't fit neatly within your 'tribe' (e.g. a conservative who is also pro-choice, or vice versa) is treated by opponents as a chink in the armor rather than an honest, independent position — pushing people toward wholesale, cookie-cutter belief systems.

People increasingly adopt views 'wholesale' rather than 'piecemeal' based on group identity
A nuanced or cross-cutting view is treated by the opposing side as proof you're not 'really' committed to your side
This creates pressure to conform fully to a tribe's expected opinions on everything
People sometimes voice outrage not because they're personally offended but because their 'tribe' expects it of them

“During a debate, if you have a nuanced view, the other side sees that as a weakness.”
Dotty · 62:00

“People feel as though because of the groups to which they subscribe, they have to respond to everything or they're letting their tribe down.”
Dotty · 63:30

#tribalism#identity-politics#online-discourse

Story· 6

Story01:30

The H&M 'Coolest Monkey' Hoodie That Sparked the Book

Dotty explains her epiphany moment in January 2018 when H&M was accused of racism for putting a 'coolest monkey in the jungle' hoodie on a black child. She argues the outrage should have been about broken corporate processes, not accusations of deliberate racism, since no multi-million-pound company intentionally sets out to be racist.

Incident: January 2018, H&M hoodie reading 'coolest monkey in the jungle' placed on a black boy
Dotty's take: warrants a conversation about H&M's flawed employment/review structure, not accusations of intentional racism
A large company won't wake up and decide to 'be a bit racist today' — it's negligence, not malice
This moment convinced her outrage had 'gone too far' and was stifling conversation
She wrote a Guardian article about it, which became the seed for the book

“A multi-million revenue company is not going to one day wake up and say 'should be a bit racist today.'”
Dotty · 03:00

“Outrage has gone too far because it's stifling conversation and we're not gonna get anywhere by having this knee-jerk reaction.”
Dotty · 04:00

#cancel-culture#outrage#corporate-pr#racism

Story17:30

'Austerity Day' — When Outrage Missed the Real Target

Dotty recounts a private school that held an 'Austerity Day,' swapping their usual lunch menu for jacket potatoes and root veg to teach wealthy students about life outside their bubble — and the resulting uproar that it 'fetishized' working-class poverty, which she cites as an example of outrage aimed at the wrong target.

A private school scrapped fancy lunch options for a day to teach kids about austerity
Public backlash claimed it fetishized and insulted people who genuinely rely on food banks
Dotty's view: real child food poverty is a serious issue, but 'slagging off' one private school doesn't dismantle it
She frames this as an example of attacking 'leaves' instead of the root problem (power structures)

“You don't take down the tree by jumping up at leaves — and that's what so much of our outrage is.”
Dotty · 20:00

#cancel-culture#class#outrage

Story26:00

The 'Fist vs Fingers' Problem With Modern Activism

Dotty contrasts today's scattered, everything-at-once online activism with the civil rights movement, where figures like James Baldwin, Maya Angelou and Angela Davis focused sustained effort on one fight rather than spreading themselves thin — arguing collective, concentrated effort ('a fist') achieves more than diffuse individual gestures ('fingers').

Civil rights-era creatives (James Baldwin, Maya Angelou, Angela Davis) had to park other pursuits to focus on the movement
Trying to care about everything means you contribute meaningfully to nothing — 'you'll knock yourself out and never sit down'
Modern online activism is like scattered 'fingers' rather than a concentrated 'fist'
Black Lives Matter is cited as an example of sustained, non-trending-for-a-day outrage that created real shift

“We're kind of busy being fingers these days... we don't pack the punch of a fist because we're not concerted in sustained efforts.”
Dotty · 27:00

#activism#civil-rights#social-media

Story42:00

Danny Baker and the 'Cancel Culture' Deflection Shield

Dotty uses Danny Baker's monkey-picture tweet about the royal baby — which got him fired from the BBC — as an example of how invoking 'cancel culture' lets people dodge accountability by reframing legitimate criticism as persecution, rather than reflecting on why the post landed badly.

Danny Baker posted a monkey picture referencing the mixed-race royal baby and was fired from BBC Radio
Rather than acknowledging the unconscious bias/poor judgment, his response was to blame 'snowflakes' and cancel culture
Dotty argues invoking cancel culture flips the narrative, turning the person into a 'victim' and dodging self-reflection
Same pattern discussed with JK Rowling: the fascination isn't 'cancel culture' itself but how it's used to evade accountability

“We've created a climate where people can evade accountability by hiding behind this idea of cancel culture.”
Dotty · 42:00

#cancel-culture#accountability#celebrity

Story44:00

Mario Lopez: A Case Where the Backlash Actually Went Too Far

Chris brings up Mario Lopez's measured, caveated comments questioning gender reassignment for children under three, which triggered a huge backlash and a groveling forced apology — Dotty and Chris agree this is one case where the outrage genuinely overreached and stifled reasonable conversation.

Mario Lopez made a hedged, caveat-heavy comment questioning gender reassignment discussions for under-3s
He received intense backlash and issued a highly apologetic, seemingly coerced statement days later
Chris argues the original comment was reasonable and didn't deserve the scale of response
Dotty: this illustrates how public pressure can force 'hustled apologies' that mean nothing and stifle honest conversation

“I just think there was nothing wrong with what you said... that to me seems like one of the times where cancel culture does come…”
Chris · 45:30

“You force someone into a corner, you force them to renounce their feeling, and you've just kind of hustled an apology out of somebody —…”
Dotty · 46:30

#cancel-culture#celebrity#free-speech

Story57:00

Gwen Stefani and Reassessing Fandom With Hindsight

Dotty uses her own past fandom of Gwen Stefani — whose imagery included a bindi, dreadlocks, and Japanese women 'on leashes' — to illustrate how something you genuinely enjoyed as a teen can look appropriative in hindsight, without needing to erase the fact you enjoyed it at the time.

Gwen Stefani's early-2000s look/imagery included a bindi, dreadlocks, and Japanese women on leashes
That aesthetic would not be accepted today
Dotty: she can't erase her genuine teenage enjoyment of the music despite recognizing the problems now
Framed as another example of accepting cultural growth rather than pretending the past didn't happen

“I can't just erase my experience as a teen that quite enjoyed a bit of Hey Baby by Gwen Stefani.”
Dotty · 58:00

#cultural-appropriation#celebrity#nostalgia

Tool· 1

Tool67:00

Dotty's Book 'Outraged' — Available in Hardback and Audiobook

Dotty's debut book 'Outraged,' exploring the psychology and culture of online outrage, is available on Amazon in hardback and audiobook (narrated by Dotty herself). She encourages readers to pass their copy on to someone else rather than just buying it for themselves.

Book: 'Outraged' by Ashley 'Dotty' Charles, took two years to write, based on a 2018 Guardian article
Available in hardback and as an audiobook narrated by Dotty
Dotty's ask: don't just buy it — read it and pass it on to someone else to keep the conversation going
She frames it as being for 'outraged junkies or friends of junkies'

“This is for anybody in need of an intervention, or who knows somebody that might be.”
Dotty · 67:00

“Recycle your outraged book once you've read it.”
Dotty · 68:00

#book#recommendation#outrage

Takeaway· 1

Takeaway64:30

Only Be Outraged By What Truly Outrages You

Dotty's closing practical advice: treat your outrage like real emotional currency you're investing — don't spend it reflexively or performatively, and only engage when you genuinely want a specific outcome or change, not just to be seen reacting.

Core rule: only be outraged by what genuinely outrages you, not what you feel obligated to react to
Outrage should exist because you want something specific to change — it's an investment seeking a return
Stop 'blindly' spending outrage the way you wouldn't blindly invest your life savings
She frames the book itself as an 'intervention' for outrage habits, not a rulebook telling people what to care about

“You owe it to yourself to only be outraged by that which truly outrages you.”
Dotty · 64:30

“Your outrage is your emotional life savings. It is yours to invest as you see fit.”
Dotty · 66:00

#outrage#advice#self-reflection