Sure, I should've stuck to a strict definition of the poorly defined thing that you "suppose" means something that wasn't at all indicated in the comment. Makes sense.

The comment made two claims:

1. We are outraged about this
2. We are not outraged about the targeting of the left

I said:

1. We can be outraged about more than one thing.
2. What evidence do you have to support your second claim?

Using "we" or "no one" is immaterial in that sentence in this context. It's not more than just not repeating the same words again and again for readability. No sensible person took that to be an ask for evidence that literally not one single person was outraged. The crux of the question, as written above, is "What evidence supports your claim?" Using your assumed definition, I'd have the same question about both claims instead of just one. My main point that we can be outraged about more than one thing would be unchanged.

Why are you acting like an apologist for normalizing the increasing psychopathy of the American society?

I'm not. You're just failing to think clearly.