I find it to be interesting, from a psychological standpoint, that the people who get the most upset about others who are getting upset are white men. They seem to be the most likely to tell people to not get angry, not be frustrated, and not be impolite - especially under the guise of you don't win people to your cause with anger - without realizing that non-white, non-men have tried that route and found it lacking. Psychologically speaking, what hubris must they have to tell others when anger is appropriate, to give them permission to be angry? You can disagree with someone about the approach, but they should not be telling someone that they shouldn't be angry about being mistreated, nor that they are too sensitive for being angry. It's totally lacking any sense of empathy.
And if you're reading this and internally accusing me of the same thing, then maybe you are starting to understand my point. But I don't hold out hope.
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.As a white male who doesn't (outwardly) do angry, I'm not sure what I am being accused of here.
Anger is an emotion like any other and is just as valid as any other emotion. But like all other emotions, it's how you manage it that makes the difference. Unmanaged anger can lead to destructive and counter productive behaviours. So in heated situations I am often that white man looking to calm everything down and find a positive way forward.
If you are talking about the broader inequalities of life, then yes, anger is a better mover than apathy.
Uncorrugated
Level 7
Oct 5, 2018
0
Everyone has the right to get angry . When in any kind of debate /discussion being calm and logical is the best approach as you are more likely to come to an agreement . Getting angry and screaming rarely gets you anywhere if ever . Shouting down someone when they are just trying to put their point of view across is a form of bullying . When you say that white men are the ones getting upset is it because they are the ones that are being shouted at in the first place ? What are teh issues you are talking about ?
Simon1
Level 7
Oct 5, 2018
0
I can’t help concluding that we’re teasing out when to play it carefully and when to start the revolution. History seems to show that no liberties are given without a fight. There are other factors to consider too. Ghandi proved the effectiveness of peaceful non-cooperation and MLK followed suit. Then we need to consider whether white men really are being victimised at all. Or women. Or black people, Jews, Muslims, the handicapped, transgender – the list is endless. As an Irishman, I’m particularly incensed at the treatment of the Irish globally and I am actively involved in starting a revolution from my barstool. But seriously, should we discuss whether white men really have a grievance in our comfortable Western world?
brentan
Level 8
Oct 5, 2018
2
sometimes being polite is inappropriate behavior.
g
genessa
Level 8
Oct 5, 2018
3
Exactly! In fact, I rather think anger itself can be the correct response, especially when you are being ignored. If you've said something louder and louder and are still being ignored, how are you supposed to react? What's appropriate? And that's what bothers me about these people. They think that because they're being heard that you are too, and that's their form of empathy.
Being polite has never been inapropriate its how decent people sort their problems out .
I wasn't aware of this. Perhaps they do it because they think anger would be counter-productive?
brentan
Level 8
Oct 5, 2018
2
It's really common right now, especially on the internet. That said, it's an old, old problem. "Oh, she's just being hysterical," is the same thing. It's saying if she'd just calm down, she'd be able to effect change, or get ahead, or whatever.
@PolyWolf There is something about the status of victimhood that puts those who fight against oppression in a vulnerable position. My guess is it comes from the perception of winners and losers in society. Perhaps it is rooted in the evolutionary process. If this is true, this would place the ‘hysterical’ women fighting for their rights and white men fighting for theirs in the very same position. The very act of fighting back is viewed as the loser attempting to better his/her situation despite being a loser in evolutionary terms. This would be interpreted as a denial of the person’s natural inferiority that needs to be confronted by the dominant hierarchy.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.