> I think you understand why citing a list tangentially related statements with entirely different intent

And yet you cited an article on divorce which had little to do with the topic. When I challenged that, you dug in harder and quoted much of the article. The article I had already read in its entirety. At which point I just stopped even discussing that point.

My list did not have different intent. It directly addressed your claim that "I genuinely do not understand how someone could possibly claim...". It's not only possible to claim. It's pretty common to claim. The article gave concrete examples of how what you were doing is exactly victim blaming with your neighborhood example. The neighborhood example is so common you can find it in multiple articles.

People who are oppressed are already victims. And you are blaming them for not being polite enough about their outrage. That the victims are the ones who are creating more racism by being outraged. It's their fault that they are radicalizing people. I'm not sure how you can blame a victim for making the problem worse and then say it's not victim blaming.

> which in my understanding is consistent with the modern understanding of radicalisation

You are the one who made the original claim that it radicalizes people so the burden of proof is on you. I did not just say no. I followed that with a persuasive argument. Which is the same as you have been doing: trying to persuade without evidence. At this point you should provide sources that anger about oppression is causing radicalization in others.

> This argument relies on the premise that I am a bad-faith actor.

People can in good faith be guilty of tone policing.

> The abuser would have hit her regardless,

Exactly! The radical would have become radicalized regardless. Well done!

> you yourself state how hard it is to pinpoint appropriate outrage.

Sure. That is the challenge. If we agree on that, then we agree that outrage in some cases is appropriate. I could end there because that pretty much summarizes my entire argument: outrage is sometimes appropriate.

> You fail to argue that this means that outrage is necessary in all forms of discussion

That's a strawman. I never claimed it's necessary in all forms of discussion, and I don't believe it is. There is a price you pay when you censor outrage. And you simply have to decide if what you get in return is worth that price.

> an outrage-free environment is inherently oppressive

It helps maintain the status-quo. If the status-quo oppresses people, then it is by definition oppressive to those people. In a society that had no racial injustice you wouldn't need to censor outrage about racial injustice. That outrage would be rare and seem weird when it happens.

> certainly seems like a better idea than an environment where any group or group of groups is the arbiter of appropriate outrage.

If you are not oppressed by society, an ivory tower like HN is pretty amazing. And I never suggested that any group should be an arbiter of appropriate outrage. What I said is that the challenge is a difficult one. I don't have answers around that. I can still point out that lacking such answers any forum that censors outrage is an ivory tower.