Last week, I wrote a piece for Boston Review about the uses and limits of outrage. I forgot to link to it here, but figured I might as well do so now that Rudy Giuliani has forced his way back into the national consciousness (and trended on Twitter for two days in a row). In the piece, I talk about why it’s occasionally OK and necessary to get outraged at the Giulianis of the world:

Precisely because the topic is so important, the argument goes, we shouldn’t focus on the most egregiously offensive or incorrect statements, since that poisons public discourse and distracts us from engaging with the strongest arguments for a given political position. We all know that the offender (Giuliani, for example) is a provocateur, so let’s ignore him or her and debate the issues like mature adults.

While considering the best versions of arguments from across the spectrum is certainly worthwhile, it sometimes needs to give way to activism, outrage’s companion. Pointing out that someone—particularly an elected official—holds ridiculous beliefs can be just as important as debating policy. Returning to the example of Ferguson and policing, it is a fine impulse to ignore the provocations of Bill O’Reilly or Representative Peter King, but the fact that their views keep finding an audience indicates something important about the state of race relations. That, in turn, shapes what policy options are viable in the current political context.