Patri Friedman

Prediction: responders to this tweet will assume I'm taking some normative position about @therealroseanne's tweet, the show, whether to cancel things for being offensive, etc, when all I did was describe a profit opportunity.

"progressive outrage" does not have a neutral connotation, and using that implies that you have a certain level of contempt for them.

Interesting. I'd like to learn more about this. Is it "progressive" or "outrage" that strikes you as biased? What would a more neutral description be, without assuming any conclusions about the controversy, since I'm interested only in the business angle.

It's the phrase because it's close to "liberal outrage," something that a lot of conservatives use to criticise liberals. Hopefully we can agree that what she said was racist? I'm not sure what conclusions you haven't reached yet.

Saying something like, "Justified outrage over clearly racist comments resulted in Roseanne's firing" is as concise and gets across that you know they were offensive and you're honestly curious about the economics of her firing

Sigh. So the only "neutral" response is to take your position? How is that neutral? You assume your own correctness - highly dangerous to truth-seeking. Rather than detesting the narrow issue of racism, why not detest its parent, tribalism, and find it in yourself?

I'm not asking you to take a stance on if it's justified to fire her. But since you said that her comments were offensive, I assumed that you felt that people being offended was justified. Or am I misunderstanding you?