This diary is about anger: how we express it, how social injustice and personal problems trigger it and how we manage it in our daily lives. PLEASE READ ALL THE WAY THROUGH BEFORE RUSHING TO REPLY TO THE HEADLINE.
A reply on a recent diary implied that MLK, Jr. and Gandhi supported violent protest. (I didn’t save it and couldn’t find it again when I looked for it; sorry.) I’ve seen this assertion posted on DK often and usually without quotes or citation. Caveat: I have not read every single diary on DK so of course I’m certain some have provided links and quotes to back that up.
In writing this diary, my goal is not to reignite debate about Black Lives Matter, looting or riots that may have occurred as isolated incidents during some protests last year. The diaries that prompted me writing this are in response to those about face-to-face confrontations with Kyrsten Sinema.
In my searches, I did not find any quotes from Reverend King or Mahatma Gandhi advocating acts of violence real or implicit be used on opponents. I don’t claim to have access to, or knowledge of every quote ever uttered by either man. I’m incapable of reading everything ever written by them and/or about them.
This is what I found reviewing multiple sources and links, but no, it is not a comprehensive list. This diary is conjecture based on research I’ve done in the past 24 hours. And it is coupled with examples and anecdotes from popular culture and my own life.
Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths
Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths
Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, and Satyagraha in the Real World
By Mark Shepard
But wasn’t Gandhi’s nonviolent action designed to avoid violence? Yes and no. Gandhi steadfastly avoided violence toward his opponents. He did not avoid violence toward himself or his followers.
Gandhi said that the nonviolent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. And in fact, during India’s struggle for independence, hundreds of Indians were killed by the British.
The difference was that the nonviolent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.
Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward’s way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away.
But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight solely by nonviolent means.
I think this analysis hits on a clear and simple understanding of Gandhi’s philosophy on violence and nonviolence. Yes, he believed that it was better to stand and fight by force rather than putting up with oppression and injustice or running away from it. But I found no quotes from Gandhi himself stating that acts of violence were something he advocated or encouraged others to use. His only defense of or support for violence was in self-defense.
Between Cowardice and Violence
Between Cowardice and Violence
Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself.
In my reading of Gandhi’s own words here, it seems clear that he advocates for violence strictly as self-defense.
Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence
Gandhi objects to violence because it perpetuates hatred. When it appears to do 'good', the good is only temporary and cannot do any good in the long run. A true nonviolence activist accepts violence on himself without inflicting it on another.
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s views on violence that I read of focused on riots and how they are the “language of the unheard.”
'A riot is the language of the unheard': MLK's powerful quote resonates amid George Floyd protests
Joshua Bote, USA TODAY
In the speech, King emphasized his support for nonviolent tactics in the "struggle for freedom and justice" and expressed his disapproval for riots, referring to them as "socially destructive." King, however, argues that worsening economic and social conditions that black Americans experience must be condemned as equally as riots. It is here he invokes the line: "A riot is the language of the unheard."
What I read here is that yes, Reverend King is talking specifically about urban riots in the 1960’s. But he is not saying that activists should corner people in public and/or use physical intimidation to bully or coerce them. Reverend King obviously understood why oppressed peoples riot and how racist policies put them into a vicious cycle of unemployment, poverty, substandard or nonexistent healthcare and lack of affordable and safe housing. Couple that with open discrimination, violence and murder by corrupt law enforcement officers and others.
This does not mean activists and protesters should not confront oppressors.
I believe that it does mean citing Gandhi and MLK and past civil disobedience from them does not qualify as justification for using coercion or confining people so they cannot leave or escape. I do not believe any activist has the right to pursue people, then confine, restrain or block them from walking away. If I block anyone, male or female (or nonbinary) from leaving a public place, I would not be shocked or surprised if they used their hands or bodies to forcibly move me out of their way.
Protest and civil disobedience are in no small part expressions of anger. Righteous anger. Moral outrage at social injustice. And anger is what I want to discuss.
As we saw thanks to the 60 MINUTES interview with Frances Haugen and her testimony on Capitol Hill, Mark Zuckerberg and his team have been refusing to alter the algorithms that filter what you see in your News Feed because content that makes you angry is “stickier,” more captivating. Their own statistics have shown that content that makes you mad gets you more engaged. You stay on Facebook longer to view more content, interact, argue, vent and rage about what has infuriated you.
I grew up with 2 Adult Children of Alcoholics. My paternal grandfather was a raging drunk who beat my grandmother until she had a nervous breakdown, got committed and treated with electroshock therapy. There’s also been sexual molestation in my family. My mother ended up with Borderline Personality Disorder after surviving her alcoholic mother who I suspect violated her for many years. My father clearly had symptoms of A.D.H.D. and my brother had severe A.D.H.D. which if I recall correctly led to him getting treated with Ritalin. My own A.D.H.D. went undiagnosed until I was 35.
A lack of impulse control, continual misreading of social cues (or missing them entirely) and racing thoughts is endemic to my family history. And yes, it’s evidenced in my online history, too. I have to be hypervigilant every single day since finding a psychiatrist who’ll prescribe medication for A.D.H.D. to someone with a history of methamphetamine abuse is not easy.
With both parents, rage and short outbursts of violence were regular occurrences in my childhood and adolescence. Sometimes you could stand 50 feet or more away from the front of our home and hear their screaming matches going on back-and-forth. Boundaries were few and far between and chaotic and unstable. Anger management didn’t exist in my home—or in public. My mother had a clandestine strategy to gain sympathy by picking fights with my father in shopping malls, restaurants and once in a bowling alley. She’d argue, then she’d raise her voice, then she’d be screaming at him and do everything to provoke him.
“You wanna hit me?! GO AHEAD AND HIT ME!” She got her wish a couple times. One of many reasons I identified with MAMA’S FAMILY as a child is the character Eunice was more than a little like my mother. The moment where Eunice destroys the pillows is exactly the kind of thing my own mother would have done…
I do not like anger. It’s cast an ugly and oppressive shadow over my entire life.
Anger has its place. Yes, it can be a motivating force for good. But the environment I grew up with and lived in the first 23 years of my life did not teach me anything good about anger. Exactly the opposite. And Drew Barrymore is right—it can and did take 30 years of therapy to process and change that.
I’ve also been mugged once, held up at gunpoint twice and assaulted on the subway. Being chased by an angry person who then punches you in the face and head makes you phobic about violence in general—and hyperaware of all anger and angry confrontations.
I’ve been a witness to and a participant in many flame wars in online communities over the years. When I was in my twenties and thirties, heated arguments in those groups weren’t pretty and rarely healthy. That’s why sometimes I look at the list of Trending Diaries on DK with anxiety. There have been days where the debates go back-and-forth nonstop and the escalating animosity really gets to me. You see it here on a regular basis.
What does endless rage, fury and venting of people’s spleens accomplish? Trump, McConnell, Manchin, Sinema--there’s a constant flurry of news to get outraged about. I suspect that if FB knows constant flame wars means greater engagement with their platform, DK surely knows it, too. Maybe they won’t admit that, but yes—the more folks are outraged about a topic? The more people engage with a website and the better it is for business.
The amount of anger expressed on DK seems exponentially higher than it was when I first found this site in 2007. Maybe if I could again see those front pages from back then (is there even a way to do that?) then I could compare the content then and now. But the level of outrage seems higher now. Or perhaps after 14 years of it, my ability to stay angry for extended periods of time has waned and I have tired of it. Or just burned out from it. 14 years is a long time to try to get or stay angry every week.
Getting triggered by events and/or the behavior of others and launching right into rage isn’t merely counterproductive. It deprives you of A) being able to tap into your “wise mind” and B) limits or blocks your ability to draw on your “reasonable mind” …
I don’t care if it’s climate change, Texas’ criminalization of a woman’s right to choose, police reform, the number of conservatives on the Supreme Court or anything else. Going full-tilt into our emotion minds when we write diaries or post replies might attract attention and get tons of engagement on DK, FB or Twitter. But I fear that type of aggression-based engagement 24/7 does us more harm than good.
Yes, there are moments when you need to be in purely reactive “emotion mind.” Like if someone is trying to carjack you, physically assault you or break into your home. Because your immediate safety or someone else’s is in danger. Acting from your emotion mind is also good for exercise and sports or to drive yourself to finish a project where you’re trying to push yourself to meet a deadline or achieve your goals. Maybe if you and a partner are struggling to save your marriage or you and a friend or relative are desperate to make peace despite political differences. Then you need to be in touch with your feelings and speak from your heart.
But writing and speaking while in your emotion mind can also be like trying to drive a bus like Sandra Bullock in SPEED. The vehicle that is you is most likely out of control.
Coming at political conflict emotionally and trying to develop an effective strategy to achieve positive goals is almost certain to fail. Your efforts to communicate with others, work through disagreements and negotiate to find some sort of decent compromise requires both reason and emotion. The two states of mind combined give you wisdom which allows you to draw on both your reasoning skills and your passions.
You say you’re incensed at Sinema and Manchin’s actions on the reconciliation bill. You’re livid with Mitch McConnell and his stupid stunts on the debt limit. Hey, I’m angry about those things, too! But here is a perfect example of how to address political gridlock from conservatives that uses a fusion of emotion and reason—wise mind…
Now THAT is how to channel righteous anger in tandem with unassailable reason—and without going to one extreme or the other. Bernie’s reactions, his observations and his tone are a perfect marriage of logic and emotion in service of a constructive goal. Here he doesn’t shout, ramble or rant. He states his case, delivers cold, hard facts and behind that ironclad logic are fiery emotions—frustration, concern, indignation, and fear of what failure would mean for millions of people.
What Sanders did in that press conference was the epitome of wise mind in action.
AND YES—Daily Kos is the right place to vent! This is a safe space to bitch, to complain, to rant and rage and blow off steam!
I’m not saying people shouldn’t be mad as hell and not take it anymore. That, however, is not the only purpose DK serves.
For me, it’s not the primary reason I signed up, started posting replies and eventually found the courage to take a chance writing and publishing diaries. When I found DK? I was overjoyed, moved by and euphoric about Barack Obama’s candidacy. I came to meet likeminded people. I wanted to relate, share and celebrate. I value diaries like the Good News Round-Up and Cheers & Jeers more. I wish those got more recs & tips than all the bloodsport rage fests that seem to perennially hold onto the #1 spot.
“We need to be stone cold killers!” Seriously? Screw that.
Yes, sometimes I too am mad as hell. But I’m a person who grew up in an emotional war zone with almost no boundaries whatsoever. I was raised and lived in a house filled with chaos, fits of rage, screaming matches, name-calling and even physical abuse. If you see DK as serving your need to vent, rant and commiserate with others over everything you’re fed up with? Good for you.
However, that’s not the main thing I need from the DK community. I don’t need more rage. I do need more hope, peace, reason and wisdom. And a lot more joy.
Too much anger has done too much damage to me and my life…
“I think when one has been angry for a very long time, one gets used to it. And it becomes comfortable.”
Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll pass on that.
For the first time in my life, I have high blood pressure. When I found that out, it scared me. I’m a Type A personality who wears his heart on his sleeve, used to showing my emotions at the drop of a hat and not hold anything back—including anger. 20 years ago, I lost my temper and bolted across the street to catch a bus that was always too early or late which got me in trouble at work. After months of frustration, I let it get the best of me. I got hit by a car.
People have done things that hurt me deeply. But when I failed to take several deep breaths, count to 10 (or 30 or 100) and think carefully about what I wanted to say and what the consequences could be? I burned countless bridges. 3 decades of therapy meant fighting to undo those behaviors, examine every emotional reaction and ponder the person I truly wanted to be. Then I had to spend many years trying to repair and restore my reputation. People aren’t as forgiving as I hoped. They can and do hold grudges for years…if not forever.
Just going right to angry rants and raging about who or what has hurt me or offended me or pissed me off Is not who I want to be. It’s not the thing I want to be remembered for. And I have observed that outrage and ad hominem attacks has never made the positive, lasting changes I sought personally or politically. Anger, for me, needs to be handled as gently as nitroglycerin. In excess, it’s toxic and destructive to me, my relationships, my reputation and my career. Now more than ever with high blood pressure, getting worked up and shooting off my mouth is not going to help me; it’s going to hurt me. And hurt people and things I care deeply about.
Expressing anger must be in moderation. I believe it’s always wiser to think carefully on what outcomes I really want and what the best way is to get those outcomes. We reap what we sow. I’m also clean & sober. Resentments that linger can become fuel for my own self-destruction. Lord knows those of us in recovery see regularly how resentments often lead to relapse, overdose or death.
If you watched that clip of Howard Beale’s famous speech from NETWORK I posted above, it’s uncanny how much of that movie remains relevant today. I do understand all the things so many are so mad about. Yet I myself can’t afford to be angry and outraged every single day. The impact on my physical, mental and spiritual health is too damn high.
Venting is a short-term fix and an unhealthy addiction. Anger may be necessary and appropriate, but it troubles me that it is the driving force for many who post here daily. It does not create or promote long-term solutions to any of the deeply entrenched problems in the world that we debate here every day. Centuries after his death, Aristotle’s remarks on anger still ring true.
Maybe DK and its articles and diaries have always been and always will be an angry place full of rages and rants, even prior to 2007. It seems like a much angrier place lately, though. I guess I’m getting old now because I don’t have the energy to get and stay mad about everything all the time.
Peace out.