Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi
Not really a useful link to tell me to google it when the definition seems to be a moving target.
Here is how a 2005 SDMB post defined it:
"RO -- "Recreational Outrage" describes when a poster expresses righteous indignation and gets highly worked up (outraged) over some issue, typically some news occurrence that is completely irrelevant to the personís own life and has no effect on that poster personally. The poster derives (recreational) satisfaction from expressing outrage and moral indignation, frequently including a sense of moral superiority, thus differentiating Recreational Outrage from other forms of outrage."
I get no satisfaction from my outrage it or a sense of moral superiority from pointing it out, part of me wishes I had never seen it. I simply found the video deeply disturbing.
Is any expression of outrage over an event that everyone would agree is outrageous an example of RO because I wasn't under the impression that a pitting required something that was debatable?
I don't know what it means to say that it is irrelevant to my own life and has no effect on me personally but I found the video quite disturbing and changed my opinion of China generally.
Here's the thing, at least as I see it: The world is a very big place, with many billions of people. Hundreds of these sorts of tragedies take place every single day. If you were so inclined, you could find some news story that would be just as outrageous any time you wanted -- simply because there's so much stuff of all kinds going on all the time.
So unless it's truly a national or world level tragedy (e.g. Darfur, Katrina) or it affects you or someone you know, it's not worth getting worked up about. IMO, of course.