9 3

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.

PolyWolf 7 Oct 5

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


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.


They grew up Entitled!


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 ?


I am happily a 'non-man'.


This shows a great deal of insight PolyWolf.


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?


Their conditioned dominance is being questioned. It's the 2018 way of appeasing dissent, their way of trying to control dialogue. Equate anger with irrational to discredit the voices most vocal in speaking out.

Those that are angry rarely listen thos ethat are calm tend to listen and discuss different views . Just because someone is more vocal does not automatically mean they are. Correct

Let genessa know when she blocks someone they can't see their replies ....

Let@Simon1 know if he wasn't being an ass he wouldn't get blocked.

@OpposingOpposum lol awww didums . Ah well shouting and censoring people seems to be the trend with those that cannot debate topics politely these days . ( And yes people can copy and paste )


sometimes being polite is inappropriate behavior.


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.

@PolyWolf women are always being told they don't smile enough, too.


@genessa not really related exactly, but just wanted to say I really appreciate your posts and mentality of thoughtfulness. You're a breath of fresh air. Even if I don't always agree (although I almost always do), you will always have my respect.

@PolyWolf 'blush


Being polite has never been inapropriate its how decent people sort their problems out .

@Simon1 decent people don't always have other decent people to sort their problems out with. if a nazi is holding a gun on you and ordering you into the gas chambers, you need a new tactic even if, and especially if, you're a decent person. yes, being polite IS sometimes inappropriate.


@genessa Wow talk about blowing something out if proportion . That's a totally different situation and not what the original post is about

@Simon1 yes, tangents, last time i looked, were not illegal. anyway, different situation from WHAT?
you said never. that did open the door to examples that counter that. so mine was extreme. it made its point.


@genessa and proves my point making the most noise does not solve problems just makes things worse .

@Simon1 in no way, shape or form did your point get proven; in no way, shape or form was it even evident that THAT was your point! either way, nothing you said proved anything.


@genessa keep telling yourself that

@Simon1 oh but you're doing such a good job of it yourself. NOT. bye.



I wasn't aware of this. Perhaps they do it because they think anger would be counter-productive?

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.

@brentan Although I wouldn't have (and didn't) word it the same way (yours sounds much more eloquent, mine angry), I think we essentially agree. The point of my second paragraph was intended to be the same, but did not come out as clearly. Thanks for the knowledge.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:193869
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.