Comment by anonymouskimmer
1 year ago
> How would anger —or even moral outrage— have improved the situation?
If at any point the chain of actions had broken down, anger would have granted the motivation to pursue through the roadblock.
You do understand that this very system implicitly disadvantages those who do not have such straightforward access to it, right?
That's why I moved to a country where (a, specifically) the rule of law is accessible to all, and (b, generally) important things rarely break down.
Justice is depicted as blind in statuary for a reason.
Edit: upon reflection, even in the Old Country, where accessibility to the law is debatable, anger doesn't seem useful. Either someone has the power to gain remedy by extralegal means or they do not, and whether they are angry or not when they make that attempt has little —despite movie plots— to do with the actual state of their power.
To be more explicit: either one has the power to gain remedy via extralegal means or one does not. If one does, doing so angrily or not doesn't change much. If one does not, I claim that first gaining the necessary power ("sleep on brushwood and taste gall") is much more likely to be effective than rashly attempting something in the expectation anger should somehow magically augment one's initial lack of power.
(in fact the latter rash attempts are likely to be advantageous for one's adversary, hence the original "hollywood for proles" conspiracy theoretic hypothesis given above)
Emotions are motivation.
Here's a decent article on the anger spectrum: https://psychology.tips/levels-of-anger/
It uses five degrees of anger (one could easily quibble, and add or subtract, based on general or personal ideas of anger): Irritation, Frustration, Resentment, Rage, and Hatred.
Ask how anyone would be motivated to gain a legal or extralegal remedy if not feeling at the very least irritation.
It's a serious mistake to only equate anger to rage or hatred.
4 replies →