Anger != Hate

[dangerpudding]

I've been seeing two words used in a way that is a lot closer to interchangeable than they actually are. I think this is a pretty huge problem, because it's leading to a wide-spread disagreement among people who are essentially on the same side of a problem

Comments

[elgecko]

My own feeling is that the expression of anger, like swearing, dilutes the effectiveness of each expression. If I express anger all the time (or close to it), I risk becoming identified as "an angry person" and my expressions of anger lose their effect and weight.

Picture Dennis Leary getting really angry over something done to him. Now picture Ghandi in the same way. Ghandi expressing anger would carry a LOT more weight.

Note that I'm drawing a distinction between feeling anger and expressing anger to other persons.

[elgecko]

It's not dismissive at all. I just have different goals in mind for my own interactions.

When I interact with an adversary, I want to persuade them to my point of view. Expressions of anger used indiscriminately rarely do that. Anger focussed into useful action does do that.

A good example of this is that when you initiate your reply to me with "You are missing a lot of the point. And you are doing so in a very dismissive way," you make it very difficult for me to develop any desire to receive the rest of your message. Were you to initiate with an open statement that doesn't point a finger, it would prompt me to be more open to being persuaded. So you know, I did make the effort and did receive the rest of your message.

[angelbob]

when you initiate your reply to me with "You are missing a lot of the point. And you are doing so in a very dismissive way," you make it very difficult for me to develop any desire to receive the rest of your message. Were you to initiate with an open statement that doesn't point a finger, it would prompt me to be more open to being persuaded

So you feel that objections to injustice are fine, as long as they're done in a sufficiently ingratiating way, designed to fellate the ego of the listener?

[elgecko]

Another thing... I strongly believe that more change has been brought about by those who use anger sparingly than those who use it indiscriminately. Think up a list of heroes of social justice. Now think of how many of them used indiscriminate anger to achieve their aims versus those who didn't. Therein lies my point.

[dangerpudding]

There was no point in this where anyone advocated indiscriminate anger, much less violence. I'm fairly offended that you went there.

I'm also, however, done trying to talk to a brick wall.

[angelbob]

Your point is highly questionable at best, alas. You could easily argue that Martin Luther King was far more effective than Malcolm X. However, without a lot of people like Malcolm X, very few things done by a fellow like King worked.

You need some MLKs later, but first you need people to become receptive to that point of view. So far, in various civil rights movements (not just in the US), there doesn't seem to be any substitute for "stop that and we'll threaten a lot of violence over a long period of time." Then, suddenly, the group being threatened wants to reason rather than fighting. Before that, they never seem to want to grant rights rather than just oppressing.

So your technique ("if only you were nicer, we'd stop being awful to you") is exactly what the other posters are claiming it is ("shut up and be oppressed, but pretend it will get you what you want").

[vvvexation]

I like to think that my anger is not at all indiscriminate.

[dangerpudding]

Nope, I'm with the two of you on this - my anger is not at all indiscriminate, and more than that, I don't think anger is violence.

Gandhi was angry. MLK Jr. was angry. Neither was *violent*. These are VERY DIFFERENT points.

[brian1789]

Other people certainly get to have their feelings, including their anger, but I'd rather them either suppress expressing it, or express it somewhere else... *unless* it is directed at me, either for sympathy/support or because I had something directly to do with causing it.

Otherwise, I don't believe everyone should express everything they feel, all the time. Tact is useful, too... as is consideration for others' feelings. I was sexually abused on two different occasions as a teenager, but I'm careful when referencing that or expressing my feelings around that, because it can be a trigger for others (like yourself) with similar past trauma.

[angelbob]

For a variety of reasons, I'm very sorry to hear this.

One of those reasons is that suppressing expressions of these emotions has, historically speaking, done a lot to condone sexual assault by making only the most egregious cases visible (and thus believed-in), and keep the victims feeling isolated and shamed.

[brian1789]

When I hear raw emotions and anger in my presence... that was the prelude for me to get attacked and beaten, by gangs of boys in my school. I still wince and unconsciously look for an escape route when that happens in a social setting. It appears you're willing to inflict that on me or anyone nearby when it suits you... okay, so now who's wielding privilege?

And if you want to compare your rape notes to mine, down to the details of our respective assailants and the 2x4 one of them used to knock me senseless, then let's take it offline.

[dangerpudding]

Jay? You're taking all of this really personally, when it isn't pointed at you.

I really, really hope that you are able to learn to be around anger and raw emotion - others and your own - without this fear, sometime in your life.

I have my own rape stories, my own stories of being beaten and kicked. I won't share them here because they are not relevant. I had to re-learn how to process anger in others, and I still struggle with it at times.

That said - I have a right to my anger, and my expression of it, so long as it doesn't impede your rights or do violence to others.

Also - I've had the arguments about what is and isn't violence and this isn't the place.