Violence is not a good thing, while anger is neither good nor bad

Violent acts are not good. i have been called violent before, wrongfully accused of being violent and dangerous and I can say it was a harmful and hurtful thing to do to me. something I’ll never forget. I don’t think it’s becoming to act in a violent manner and I don’t think it’s a productive form of activism. There are plenty of ways you can be an activist without being violent.

You can march in the streets. You can hold a sign. You can write letters. You can be a good citizen. You can show people that life is possible without harmful drugs and therapy. You can show people that life is possible after the hospital. You can be a great person sans diagnosis. You are a person without a diagnosis! You aren’t a disease anymore and you can show people that. None of these things are violent acts.

Anger is neither a good nor bad thing, since emotions on their own aren’t laden with morality. Anger is nothing but a feeling. What you do with it may be good or bad. Do something good and constructive with it, such as fueling your recovery, or walking away from a bad relationship, or quitting cigarettes for good since you’re fed up, or ditching your doctor!

Maybe you got so mad at your cell phone that you quit Verizon and went to the new guys who are offering the same service, half price! See, is that all that bad? Or you got pissed at your bank and took your money out and then…along came your sweetheart, so you bought her a ring. Ahh…. Do I hear wedding bells? You got mad at your boss and got a better job.

You don’t have to blow up a bridge. I don’t suggest that. It’s violent. It’s not productive unless it’s part of a movie set. Then you’ll make big bucks.

Anger isn’t good nor bad. It can even be fun. Throw a party. Make your own pizza and put it on the wall and then throw marshmallows at the pizza. Have fun. Please don’t eat that concoction. Toss it out. Thank you!

10 thoughts on “Violence is not a good thing, while anger is neither good nor bad”

  1. Yes. There certainly is such a thing as righteous indignation. Part of the secret to Harriett Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin’s success and literary canonization lies not just in it’s message. Despite her poor writing methods, Stowe conveyed her abolition message as well as she did because she loved the Africans-Americans (though she seems to have underestimated their intelligence.) more than she hated slave-holders. So she succeeded where John Brown failed.

      1. Yes. Ironically, the pro-slavery crowd hated it when it came out. (They knew Mrs. Stowe had modeled Simon Legree after them. She had gone to great lengths not to offend the slave owners and made Legree a New Englander and not a Southerner.)

        Now the SJW crowd are up in arms and call the novel racist like Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. Actually Tom is of embarrassingly heroic proportions and a little too perfect to be believable. Some slaves actually achieved this level of moral perfection I think.

        Remember Joseph and how his brothers forced him into a life of slavery? Because of the cruelty he endured he had to become a super-saint or succumb to a life of bitterness and slavery worse than any human master could inflict on him. Sometimes there is no happy medium permitted.

        1. I read Uncle Tom so long ago from what I recall of books I was made to read back then many characters were larger than life like that. Sometimes they deliberately wrote like that. Looking back at the times there was a trend to create that sort of character for a variety of reasons. The Moral book.

  2. Theory of anger and violence is very interesting. I have been trying to get Jack White to do Billie Holliday’s “Strange Fruit” as Rock blues, because it might begin to express our outrage, as well as the macabre sorrow, at lynching. Even violence in defense of others against injustice need not be an idle threat, though it is a last resort to prevent worse harms. Anger is to prevent injustice, but most are fighting their own shadow and do not hold anger in the right way. Bruce Lee shows Cain fighting an illusory demon in a cave, losing, and in a flashback, tho old blind guy, (remember ?), says, “why have you left the Tao?” Then the illusion disappears. Would you stop a rape? Or even a purse snatcher? Only the very wisest would do so without anger. Only do not lose. A short woman fought off two carjackers because her disabled son was inside the van. Mr. Sugiyama refers to the mother hen, who fights off wolf or fox in defense of her young, a principle of spirit in the martial arts. The fourth clause of the second sentence of the Declaration, in justifying violent revolution against tyranny, says not for trivial reasons, but a long train of abuses. Before Gandhi and M.L. King, non-violent political protest was barely known, though it is absolutely brilliant. Can you watch women and children struck by the powerful and not stop it? The Palestinians do not yet have access to this idea. It is especially revenge that, as for Hamlet, undermines prudent action. But for righteous indignation, one must first be right! And this rarely occurs for the angry. It may be that practical wisdom REPLACES anger in Aristotle’s Ethics.

    1. Protecting yourself is totally different from revenge or retaliatory action. As you so wisely point out. We should all hope we are not put on the defensive, since those who put us in such a position are the ones doing the violence.

      Such as those who lock us up, this is a violent act in itself, and often, such acts of violence, which always ARE force, will cause a patient to act in self-defense, or to use defensive language or to act in a way to self-preserve. This is clearly not in itself violence, how can it be? It is often the only thing we can do to stay alive, therefore, sometimes not even relevant whether it was chosen! It is our god-given right to self-preserve if we are under duress or force.

    2. It’s way too complemented to fully understand. All humans are hopelessly flawed and a little bit evil, or a lot more. It’s merely a question of degree. Not what you call moral relativism but human relativism. I believe behaviors and thoughts are black and white with just a teeny gray area where right devolves into wrong. It all starts in the human heart and our inscrutably complicated motives.

      People are actually gray, some more, some less. But we all owe our existence to dots of black ink like newspaper images.

      1. That’s interesting, but debatable among scientists. Many do agree that we’re anatomically “binary” creatures. Computers are, for sure, since they’re made of electrical circuitry. The nervous system is binary, but what about the rest? We have to be careful……We aren’t just a bunch of neurons and genetic material, we’re skin, bones, hair, blood, inert material, too.

  3. Our genes also influence us in ways neither moral nor immoral. These might be comparable to another spectrum–say the rainbow. It all starts out as white light and turns into many beautiful colors. More than our human eyes can even see.

Feedback and comments welcome!