Maybe we're reading it differently? I read:

'Historically, outrage has accomplished things by resulting in laws. Today's outrage is ineffectual because it isn't resulting in laws.'

This is what i ment. Sorry for being imprecise.

I would argue, that this is actually the goal of todays outrage culture- not to change things for the better within the legal framework of a democracy, but to keep the emotional core of a "movement" going.

> I would argue, that this is actually the goal of todays outrage culture- not to change things for the better within the legal framework of a democracy, but to keep the emotional core of a "movement" going.

I agree about the priority: It's a reactionary, ideological culture/movement; they need to be against something; members need to demonstrate their ideological adherence by being more and more extreme. Passing outrageous laws can be part of that. Passing constructive laws by bringing people to the table, listening to their needs, and creating consensus would indeed undermine the movement, IMHO.