Why are so many people against the use of anger? Anger is a positive force
The Republicans whipped up the anger in their base and won control over all three branches of government. Why are we supposed to be 'accepting, reasonable and reaching out" to the other side? Why are we supposed to unite with them? Angry talk show hosts have much more influence than reasonable soft voices. It was the angry progressives that raised the bulk of the Democratic Party's money this year. If we had used their anger , we wouldn't be talking about recounts! I have been told That my anger is "bad" I should be more tolerant. Look who is winning! I think the problem is not that there is too much anger but too little. We should really get angry and not give these people any quarter. They wouldn't , and won't "reach out to, or build a consensus with us. The Republicans view elections as war with an enemy to be vanquished. We view elections as a "debate". Even now,the DNC is talking about "re framing the "debate" ! As though that would work in the face of war! Someone ,please tell me, what is wrong with anger? And why are the Repugs able to use it successfully and we aren't?
37. Actually it does. People need an argument. Emotion may influence what they
think is important. But the emotion prompts a question that needs to be answered by ideas the candidates present about what they're all about.
For example, Bush scared some people with terror. But that alone wasn't what got them to vote for Bush. What got them to vote for was that being scared prompted the question, "with whom do I feel safer?"
And to quote Sean Michaels, professional wrestler, warming up the crowd at Tinker Field on October 30, 2004: "If your babies were left all alone in the dead of night, who would you rather have setting there on the porch -- John Kerry and his snowboard or George W. with his shotgun?"
Bush prompted a question with an emotion, but he made sure he laid out the argument for voters that helped them answer the questions they were asking with the thought "must vote for Bush."
Now, that might not sound like substance to you, but that is the reduction of a lot of substance down to a simple question and a simple answer. Just because you don't agree with the argument or the evidence or the conclusion, that doesn't mean there isn't substance and there isn't more than just emotion at work.
But to a lot of people, John Kerry's antiwar Vietnam days, and his meeting with the enemy in Paris during a war, made them afraid that he would sell them out.
Not saying I agree with. I am saying that you have to understand what many people were afraid of. You can't really address and win over voters who are only losely attached to the other side until you understand them.
48. But the reverse of anger, is depression...when you don't defend yourself
or fight back...as any Rape victim knows.
Inaction is also stagnation, and no 'growth'...personal or otherwise. Then again, that IS the definition of "Conservative," isn't it. No progress, no change...all 1950's, all black-and-white. No women's rights, no abortion, no Civil Rights, no sex out of marriage...ad nauseum (quite literally).
Defending ones' boundaries are fine. As Dem's we've let Repugs define us forever, and therefore 'shame' us according to their "values"...which of course are valueless, and have no "value" at all!
we have conservatives, too. And I used to be a journalist. And wherever I worked: Guess who came visiting us in the office all the time smiling - and offering gifts? Guess who lied to the publisher when he didn't like what we wrote? Guess who said he wouldn't advertise anymore in the paper and his friends wouldn't either when we wrote something he didn't like? Guess who threatened that nobody would EVER advertise anymore and that the publisher would not get the medal he had "coming for him" if a certain too inquisitive editor wasn't kicked out? A conservative every single time.
And guess who just gave us a phone call every once in a while to just ask how we were doing? The Social Democrat of course. A really nice guy. Every Social Democrat I ever got to know was such a nice guy. No Social Democrat I ever met complained to the publisher. No Social Democrat I ever knew tried to use pressure. No Social Democrat I ever knew tried bribery. No Social Democrat I ever knew called the publisher when he was really fed up. And no Social Democrat I ever knew tried or even threatened to get his own newspaper going like the CDU ("Christian" Democrat Union) did time after time...
Compassion. That's what the Social Democrats went for - at least on the local and regional level. I love them for this. And I dislike them for this. Because the personal compassion that each and every one of them displayed was NOT for the good of the whole. A little more anger would have benefited us all - all of society - much more.
11. If you're angry, any actions you take should be authentic and reflect that
but being angry is an unhealthy state that polarizes people, and it'll end up making people more conservative and hurt our cause in the long run. We can use anger, sure, but we should not aim for that. If we really need anger to move forward, what will we do when it dies down?
..you're taking advice from Goebbels and the Republicans?
I know that was a distortion of what you said, but you have to understand I couldn't resist :)--but in seriousness, the fact that you can create emotion doesn't fight my claim--I did not say that you cannot resolve to have a certain emotion as a way of saying it will be difficult to maintaint, but to say that it is difficult to maintain authentically. If an emotion is not maintained authentically, its negative effects are compounded. I think the only expression of anger, a destructive emotion, which can be construed as healthy, is one of true anger that is deep-seated in a person's consciousness. Anger is, in addition to being unpleasant, an expression of fundamental disjunction from the world that needs to be dispelled within the hearts and minds of the wider American community if we are to move forward. By forward I don't mean to someone like Kerry or Dean, but someone like Cobb or Kucinich. They are strident and they express their anger when they feel it, but it is not consistent because it is not manufactured. Anger is polarizing between people and between different facets of a personality and it is polarization that fuels Republican support.
50. Very good argument. However manufactured anger can become genuine through
repetition. Many actors in Marat Sade developed symptoms of the mental illnesses they portrayed. I also agree about shrillness Of Cobb and DK. However, their followers are as devout as the Deaniacs. They have something to build on. I think a better model is the of effect is Sean Hannity, who while being shrill sometimes, is presentable in his anger. He never changes course,even when he is wrong. He follows Disraeli's Maxim, "alway deny it!" We need a tiny bit of Machiavelli as well" the ends justify the means". ( I don't mean in killings or such but we should have fought back with dirt on Bush after the SBVFT). And as for your first comment, why shouldn't we learn from Goebbels or the Republicans? If they have ideas that can help us win, we should go for it. Propaganda is not new. All political campaigns utilize it to an extent. We should do more of it. The Repugs do so through control of the media. We need to control some media! Otherwise the American voter will continue to think we are almost non existent and the whole Party will be considered a "fringe group"!
42. Anger is the only emotion that will save America.
Americans have grown seduced to the easy route and to being "appropriate" and comfortable. It is the "worm of ease" that will be this countrie's demise. That is their greatest weapon against us because we don't feel comfortable being "angry". Just as "they" must learn to be more compassionate, we must learn to fight, and fight hard, when necessary. What greater time than now.
In order to save this country we have to become courageous and leave our comfortable illusion, which is indeed an illusion, because as long as we live in the fantasy that all is really well and there are those Congresspeople looking out for us, we are in BIG trouble.
We have to learn to fight or we will be like every other passive group that has been erased in the past.
If we choose not to fight, then we allow the bullies to win. We will be responsible for that loss if we choose not to fight.
47. Nothing is wrong with anger..except to those who want you to lose(to them)
That's why Men "trained" Women for centuries to always "smile" and NOT express their anger, or when they DID, to feel shame about it. I like what Teresa Heinz said about it at the DNC last summer, "...being Opinionated."
And what was the last part of the Gandhi quote: "...then they fight you, then you win." If they don't want us to be angry, they don't want us to fight back...which means THEY'RE on the offensive. So let's put our 'dukes' up and K.O. them without guilt!
It's very powerful, but it takes away our potential to discriminate and think and therefore it is almost always destructive and amounts to nothing but suffering.
Take a protest of 1000 people and if 10 become angry and violent then watch the media coverage. The 990 will be forgotten and the 10 angry ones will be headline news and usually destroy the motivations behind the protest.
I agree that the out of control ones will be headline news and perhaps negatively effect debate, but ya know, they will be paid attention to by MSM and will cause debate. Rational discourse gets no attention at all. And any publicity is better than NO publicity!
No, anger is not justified. (Read "A Course in Miracles")
There is no way to know all the reasons, motivations, and personal decisiions that lead someone to a decision, so there is no way to judge a person, or to know how to respond to someone, even if they are ignorant. The only thing anger does is point the finger and decide who deserves to die. Never a good approach.
A good teacher does not come into first grade and yell at the students because they don't know how to read, but instead starts with the A, B, Cs. Believe me, MANY of these folks in politics are in first grade in a spiritual sense.
53. People in this county are way too comfortable to be angry
they'd prefer to sit on their couches with the remote control in their hand and be indifferent to how their freedoms are slipping out of their control. I look at the citizens of the Ukraine after the recent election---that's anger. They were in the streets by the thousands. That would never happen here--they'd have to miss their favorite tv program to do that. * has been able to steal 2 elections and folks would rather sit on their butts with their remotes in their hands and watch Survivor than to rally for their rights in the streets.
Purposeful anger, with direction and intent is good. Misguided anger for anger's sake, which the 10 out of 1000 would be about, is not. Like any other emotion, anger can be steered in a profitable direction if one has the discipline to not be reactionary in their anger. However, most folks in this country don't possess enough discipline to be successful in directing their anger in the proper direction.
Yes, if Kerry had not been so wimpy and had struck back
forcefully at cheap Republican attacks, he might have won.
Didn't Kerry camp realize this Presidential race was all about
"toughness"? How could they be so clueless?????
60. Yes. The anger is there, it is real, and it is insane to bury it, deny it
toss it aside, or eat it. We have the same kind of anger that sent Union soldiers into battle at Gettysburg. It is righteous anger. It is right as rain to be angry when your neighbor holds another man in slavery and will not set him free. It is right to be angry when the President lies to the nation and launches an unjust war. People who have no anger for what the Bush Family Evil Empire has unleashed on this nation, are out of touch with their emotions; they are dead really.
There is a great book titled the Four Fold Way, I forget the author's name, that talks about The Warrior, The Visionary, The Healer, and The Teacher.
The visionary is one who "speaks the truth without blame or judgement". So, for example, a parent can be angry with a child doing drugs, and demand that they stop, saying, "you are hurting yourself, and you are hurting me".
But here is what the "Visionary" cannot do (they cannot go into blame and judgement)-- they cannot go on and say, "the reason you are doing drugs is that, "you are evil, and because you are evil, you need to be punished, and because I am you judge, jury, and executioner, I will apply the punishment".
Rightous anger has a place in truth telling, but it has no place in blame, judgement and punishment, for that is where anger itself becomes evil.
Whenever you use it, you should have some sort of plan for how it will get you what you want. An honest, reasonable plan subjected to a more than fair amount of skepticism. It should never be used to gratify onesself, nor should your reasons for using it be twisted to serve that end.
62. Anger is good. we need to build on our anger on behalf of the
victims of 9-11 who have still not been vindicated ...on behalf of our dead soldiers from Iraq ...on behalf of our future soldiers who are being put in harms way for a bunch of lying greedy bastards ...get angry and then do something about it!!!
Basically it states that the "War On Terror"(tm) is a TOTAL rehash of an earlier deception the same fellows pulled back in the 70s called "The Cold War" -- Chilling and totally freak-out quality -- I'd say it's at least a "taupe"!
If you're angry and you know it, clap your hands! If you're angry and you know it, clap your hands! If you're angry and you know it, AND YOU REALLY WANT TO SHOW IT If you're angry and you know it, clap your hands!
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.