A very poorly thought out article. The author tries their best to assert a false dichotomy that the only two possible responses to an injustice are acquiescence

A very poorly thought out article. The author tries their best to assert a false dichotomy that the only two possible responses to an injustice are acquiescence and anger, by attempting to reclassify all non-acquiescent response as just anger by a different name. At very best this is just a contrivance that attempts to remove so much meaning from the words involved in the debate that it ceases to be a debate about anything at all. The author also seems only interested in the moral corruption of anger in so much as it draws the judgement of others. The other moral corruption brought on by anger, which I would say constitutes a greater harm, is the burden of having to carry it around with you. Living a life burdened with ever increasing levels of anger is most certainly a moral corruption, and one much more likely to harm you than the opinions of others.