3 ms·
Stated beautifully. The issue cited in the paper doesn't seem to be "rage", which seems fairly uncommon. Instead, it seems to address common exasperation with t
by alexqgb 16y ago
Stated beautifully. The issue cited in the paper doesn't seem to be "rage", which seems fairly uncommon. Instead, it seems to address common exasperation with the congenitally (and deliberately?) witless, with a few extremes thrown in for good effect.
It would be different if the author acknowledged that the people triggering exasperation were, in fact, behaving badly. Instead, he seems to dismiss any sense of socially cohesive conduct as something mysterious, arbitrary, and possibly dangerous. It's easy to read the whole thing as a passive-aggressive defense of passive-aggressive jerks.
The one in a million who actually go ballistic are outliers. The PA types who trigger them - though a minority - are exponentially more common, and an irritation for everybody.
- teyc 16y agoI don't think this is the author's focus. He is trying to convey that there is a better way rather than being easily exasperated because the negativity wastes the limited life we each have. The sense of exasperation arises out of a state of mind that is easily disturbed and ruffled. Whatever skills one can gain from being 'at one' with the crowd will translate into the rest of their lives, and improve the relationship with their loved ones.