Anger could be something wonderful if it were only used productively, wrote Sascha Lobo in his current column. It could be very effective politically and socially, even change the world - if it is used productively. But that is usually not the case.
After all, wutsnobs would direct their anger "toward the simplest, cheapest, most agreeable goal for themselves, and bothered little to nothing about eliminating the reasons for the anger". It doesn't matter whether the anger was justified or not. Wutsnobs only wanted to "quickly spawn their angry poo", "rise above third parties and then change exactly nothing".
He recently observed exactly this behavior in himself. He met a man and a woman in a shopping mall: "The man is wearing his mask incorrectly, his nose is sticking out. The woman is not wearing a mask at all. Who am I angry with? At the man, the dachshund, who is wearing his mask incorrectly . Not on the woman who isn't wearing one. That is completely absurd. "
Lobo doesn't know why the two behaved as he had observed. This is exactly what he sees as the core of the problem when he says: "Angry obsession can be found wherever everyday conflicts are only viewed on the surface. Where explanations, backgrounds, social structures are ignored."
In addition, Wutsnobs are often "condescending towards supposedly lower social classes, towards economically less successful or less educated people." This undirected, undifferentiated way of letting off steam is "too often focused on the symptoms alone" and, through its unjust and unjustified din, only creates resistance among the hostile.
In addition, anger can psychologically be viewed as a kind of accumulator: "If it is repeatedly discharged with nothingness, then you deprive yourself of the energy that is needed for a substantial change."
In the podcast, Sascha Lobo comments on some letters from his readers.
Icon: The mirrormak