Is It Ok To Get Angry At Other People?

[Pencil]

There can also be a sort of ganging up that happens when one person is perceived as being angry. All the people who don't like to admit that they are also angry deep down start projecting and brow beating and shunning.

Indeed.

 

[Philippa]

It's also compounded by poor diet habits and smoking, drinking, drug use etc. Anthony. When people have all these stresses, AND they aren't taking care of themselves, or escaping the stress via drugs or drinking, then it makes them even more volatile and likely to explode on someone.

You tube comment section appears to be the world community vomit ground for miserable people.

I read about a couple in the states recently who ran a very popular "positive thinking" programme, with lots of followers. It was a bit of a shock to everyone when they both up and killed themselves one day a few months back! Says a lot right there.

 

[Deleted member 1860]

You tube comment section appears to be the world community vomit ground for miserable people.

Sadly it's not just YouTube. I've noticed the same on the comment section....everywhere. Ok, perhaps not everywhere, but on news sites especially, and other sites that post articles and have a comment section. And then there are the backlash sites, you know the ones that ban you if you don't spread sunshine and roses 24/7. I was banned from a coupon blog for pointing out a that the blogger was advocating the fraudulent use of coupons. Ironically I was told to "shut up because the blogger works sooo hard!" Well, I guess they only wanted positivity unless it was to be nasty toward anyone who dared to break this unspoken "rule".

 

[Nicolette]

I've reverted back to childhood now, when I'm angry, I don't speak, I leave.

Absolutely agree that it isn't aggressive

I'm confused as I read that your current response when angry is to leave (so you are angry in the act of walking away) but then I read that you agree that 'walking away' is not aggressive.

From where I sit, I see that type of behaviour as passive aggressive. In my opinion it is different to walk away from someone being angry at you and saying that "I'm happy to listen to you when you calm down" but just leaving is rude and somewhat disrespectful as I see it, unless of course there is a cause to leave other than the topic or discussion making you angry. I feel that this is being looked at from only one side and it's not fair to judge or comment if we don't know how the other person is feeling/acting/behaving. Eg In my opinion, if someone said something, not knowing you have PTSD, and it triggered you and made you angry and you just don't speak and walk away angry it is not fair to the other person who would be likely to be left standing dumbfounded. I believe there needs to be some communication for walking away for the behaviour not to be passive aggressive. I haven't read that 'walking away' entails saying 'I need to leave this conversation for now and have some time out' or something along those lines.

In my opinion, walking away from confrontation due to feeling angry, can sometimes be taking it out on someone else by dismissing them the courtesy to discuss the problem........ Not all confrontation is bad, it may not be liked etc but it doesn't mean that all confrontation = anger = violence which is my interpretation of some member's take on anger in this thread.

When a child has a tantrum, it's not good parenting to shout back telling them that they are bad for feeling angry. But it is equally poor parenting to tell them that it's ok to have tantrums because they were angry. Instead, you teach a child that it's ok to have those feelings, but that they can express them in a way that doesn't hurt or endanger themselves or others (or property).

I wholeheartedly agree. In my opinion it is good parenting when a child has a tantrum to teach and encourage them to express their feelings in words and communicate to others in a calm manner. That being said I know of child psychologist which suggested a punching bag for a child who struggled to communicate their frustrations which led to them being angry..............

 

[Meadowsweet]

Only when she can look at the situation objectively can she look at her own behaviour and emotions objectively.

I agree. But a child seeks to learn, that's how it grows up. When people become adults, they aren't necessarily open or wanting to learn to improve their behavior. In these cases, no amount of showing, explaining, teaching, offering of alternative ways will 'make' them learn.

there's a lot of room for things to get misinterpreted or for offhand remarks to cause offence where none was intended.

This is more the reason why a person believing that someone else is responsible for 'making' them angry, would benefit from owning their anger, rather than blaming others for it.

There are definitely times where it's entirely appropriate to express anger directly to someone. It can be hard to decide that, especially if something someone has said or done has really hit a nerve.

Yes, when somebody is putting you or someone near you in danger. But that isn't hard to decide. When people start thinking about it being justified in some instances and not in others, then that is where the blame game and attempts to self justify come in. But where does it stop?

What drives me is that I don't want to be like THEM. So although I make mistakes and mess up, I do try to learn from it.

I understand this, and I'm sure you will find that middle ground in the end (ie the healthy way). Solara made one of the best suggestions, if you are able to stay in control of your anger, then try wording it with an 'I' statement = "I am angry because I find your words hurtful and inappropriate in the context of this particular mothers day thread"

Though I have to say, if I am angry, I am often too fightened or upset to be able to voice anything. So I walk away and can manage to express myself assertively once I've got my head together again.

society is progressively becoming angrier.

I think it may be in part because we live the way we do. But also, perhaps because we have become a more self-centered society, every man for him/herself. And the justification for shooting angry rants at others seems to be based on a premise of the angry person being entitled, or having the right to express what they want to say - and it seems to lack the alternative view of whether it's ok to speak or act in that way towards another person.

 

[Meadowsweet]

I haven't read that 'walking away' entails saying 'I need to leave this conversation for now and have some time out' or something along those lines.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Survivor2Thriver]

but I was shunned for it, and actually ended up getting angry and a bit rude at them because I was being harassed for venting...

Ahh man..you were doing great. Next time allow your humor to kick in!!! The problem with venting is people take it personally. That's their problem.

It's necessary to vent. What is the alternative?! LOL Yup... The last thing this world needs is more walking time bombs with unexpressed emotions!

A friend of mine had a legit problem to vent. One of her other friends told her she was too angry and needed professional help. LOL I guess she wanted her to sit there and not say a word. I told her she could vent all she likes to me. She did. I stood there and listened to her every word without judgment and let her rip. What appeared as anger was really sadness. At the end of our discussion we had solved the problem in several constructive ways. And most importantly...we were laughing. :playful:

There is no right or wrong way to vent..as long as you're not hurting another human being.

 

[Survivor2Thriver]

There can be. There can also be a sort of ganging up that happens when one person is perceived as being angry. All the people who don't like to admit that they are also angry deep down start projecting and brow beating and shunning.

That is exactly what happens. Projection. They cannot separate their own feelings from what is actually being said. Sad really.

 

[Survivor2Thriver]

Ok, but the thread is about venting anger. I'm all for getting on the soap box about politics or the cost of living etc. But to get on the soap box and get angry at old people, or black people, or women, or single parents has the potential to cause harm by drumming up fear and prejudice in others. So I don't think it is ok to vent about those things.

My point is discovering the real problem. Anger is a mask for fear. Venting is a release before anger settles in and also can be a release of anger. It can be both. Neither being wrong. If everyone understood the differences..oh what a better world we would live in. :joyful:

Rude people exist. I don't respond in kind. Why? It doesn't have anything to do with me. Not every old person,or black people or women or single parent gives a damn about the prejudices of others. Why? Because they understand they are listening to a willfully ignorant individual.

~What people say about others will always say more about them.

 

[Pencil]

In these cases, no amount of showing, explaining, teaching, offering of alternative ways will 'make' them learn.

I remain hopeful, but I'm afraid you are right. I actually see it daily.

But your original point was along the lines of telling them, and I have found that most people, myself included, often only become defensive. And that is why I advocate a more roundabout way of giving them a situation they can identify with, and then lead it back to the current situation. But this sounds so wordy and murky...

 

[Pencil]

Yes, when somebody is putting you or someone near you in danger. But that isn't hard to decide. When people start thinking about it being justified in some instances and not in others, then that is where the blame game and attempts to self justify come in. But where does it stop?

I guess it comes back to the Aristotle quote, and the implication is that there are no hard and fast rules for expressing anger, feeling anger, responding to anger, responding in anger, etc. I think it is always situation-specific and one has to use discretion in each situation.

For ME, in MY life, (I'm capitalizing to show that I don't think it is universal), the following rules apply:

If I do something to YOU, with obvious intent, you have the right to let rip. If I do something to your teddy bear, out of malice or spite, go for it. If I do it out of carelessness, go for it. If I accidentally step on it and I apologize sincerely, going for it would be close to insanity.

On the other hand, if I shred my own teddy bear, it does not concern you and you don't have the right to be angry, never mind express anger.

What happens if I set your friend's teddy bear alight? Here it is more murky.

These examples are overly simplistic, I know, but often people don't even consider clear boundaries. I grew up in an insane family, just like the majority of members, and in insane families boundary issues are at the core of the dysfunction. I grew up having to defend myself in relation to things that did not concern my family. For example, when I had an argument with my best friend, my insane sister would see it as a reasonable excuse to persecute, judge and punish me.

But to get back to your original question regarding whether it is justified to take one's anger out on another, or be verbally abusive or rude to another, my answer would simply be: Never. And yet, having said that, I thought of Jesus (whether anyone here is religious or not is irrelevant, I'm not pushing Christianity) who smashed the tables in the temple. So perhaps what is needed are guidelines in terms of where one has the right to be angry and where not. You see threat / danger as a situation that justifies aggression. I agree - come near my child and I'll kill. But aren't there other situations in which anger and/or aggression would be justified?

Perhaps many of us are afraid of anger.

Apologies if I posted too much in this thread; it is a topic that unsettles me and I am still trying to get rid of years of insane anger - my own and others'.

 

[Meadowsweet]

And that is why I advocate a more roundabout way of giving them a situation they can identify with, and then lead it back to the current situation. But this sounds so wordy and murky...

Not at all. with my own children, when they were young, i would use the 'one, two, three, time out' method.. then when they had had their tie out, we would have a talk, and i would explain why I had to stop their behavior, we would discuss how they felt and how others might feel, then hug and reassure that all was well.

So perhaps what is needed are guidelines in terms of where one has the right to be angry and where not.

That would be ideal. But it seems that it is something that comes down to where people place their own rights in comparison to the rights of others. Like "is my right to express anger more important than that persons right to be treated without insult or aggression". or equally "is my right to live only with positive expressions of emotion more important than that persons right to express the honesty of how they feel"

From what I'm reading, I think there can be a see-saw effect, where sometimes a person has been suppressed for so long, that when they discover their 'right' to express anger, it is a right in the face of those who have suppressed them. But hopefully, as they swing the other way to exercise a right to be angry, they find that it isn't any more fulfilling to suppress others with their anger, as it was to be suppressed... and find the middle ground.

For myself, I don't want to be a person who takes anger out on others, I wouldn't like myself for doing that. I have a lot of issues that make me feel like shit, but I take a little bit of self respect from the fact that I do acknowledge they are MY issues, and that I'm responsible for working at managing or resolving them. To take them out on someone else diminishes that self-respect, so it's better for my health not to.

At the same time, I recognise that I struggle to shrug off the fact that other people are expressing anger directly towards individuals in verbally abusive rants and then justifying their right to do that... but even so, verbal abuse is not life threatening, but my inward reaction takes it a lot more seriously than I should.

I don't lose myself in full on flashbacks now, where I thing my life is under direct threat - I have tow views, one part of me is reacting, but another part of me can see that it is a reaction, and be logical about it.