> My criticisms here relate to authenticity, and choice of specific values - [not an] idealization of 'unselfishness' Sure. So, is it not enough to just be nic

> My criticisms here relate to authenticity, and choice of specific values - [not an] idealization of 'unselfishness' Sure. So, is it not enough to just be nice to people, must we always be authentic too? > I don't think this blog post is the worst thing ever And I don't think it's the best thing ever. Honestly, I don't have much of an attachment to this essay either. The only specific positive point I see to this essay is giving yet another tool to people who otherwise would fail to express their anger in a proper way. And this parlays into my next point: > I don't want selfish, impatient, aggressive people to get better at faking being civil People who experience anger are not necessarily all aggressive people. Aggression is "a behavior where the intention is to harm someone or something."[1] This blog post is about helping people retain their civility in the face of anger and avoid aggression, which I think is something you're in favor of. It's not "faking being civil," it's just another way to help people be civil. Some people have legitimate issues with how they deal with anger (and aren't necessarily people for which an "introspection and re-evaluation of their values" is obligatory), and I think it's great to give them more tools with which to ease back into society. I don't like "selfish, impatient, aggressive" (hereinafter referred to as "bad") people either. But angry people aren't necessarily "bad" people, and even then "bad" people have to start somewhere. 1: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-the-rage/201109/five-things-know-about-anger https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-the-rage/201109/fiv...