Anger as the new Indignation

     I keep reading about someone exercising their "right" to free speech in a non-violent manner, disagreeing with Group XYZ's attempt to become THE dominant social power in the west, and that person being met with angry protest. Normally they'll be decried as "racist" or their words being the result of "white, cis-gendered privilege", or something similar. Rather than face the writer or speaker directly and express similar non-violent disagreement, supported by logical (though apparently logic is sexist) arguments, the protesters simply scream and cuss with the apparent intent of drowning-out a voice they disagree with. When removed from the property, or arrested, the protesters claim their right to free speech is being violated.
     Violence against Anglos, especially males, is now socially acceptable, and somehow that is not racist. I recall being told that we're all equal and that initiating violence against anyone is wrong. Apparently that's part of my Anglo cis-male privilege.

"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" (Dictionary.com). Seems fairly straight forward to me. If you dislike someone based on ("progressive" definitions of) race, you are racist. (though the definition of "race" seems somewhat nebulous anymore, and seems to be contemporary slang for phenotype if I understand correctly). However, since only Anglos are capable of racism, I must be wrong. (since Europe is regularly used as the example of what America should be, I love using references from European publications).
     We're supposedly in the midst of a social revolution. Unfortunately, it seems those active in this "revolution" haven't studied much history beyond what they thing supports their own views. One of the problems with every violent revolution is that it might be successful in the short-term, but it just continues the same problems in the long-term. Group A hates being oppressed by Group B, so they revolt and take over. In their anger, they then oppress Group B. They justify this with the history of Group B's historical oppression of them. Eventually (usually over the course of a few generations) Group B gets sick enough of being oppressed that they revolt, take over, and oppress Group A with the justification of the history of oppression Group A engaged in against them. And over and over and over, etc, ad nauseum. Look at the former Yugoslavia and how the Serbs slaughtered Muslims in response to how the Ottoman Empire oppressed them for a few generations. Revolutions go 'round and 'round, and 'round, with everyone losing in the end.
   

     I am of the belief that this is all simply fueled by a social...evolution(?) away from self-restraint, towards impulsiveness, leading to a cultural-level anger addiction. (here's a wonderful article about how "follow your heart" is horrible advice). The push for spontaneity has lead to various groups behaving in childish ways, and this is being reinforced by politicians who enjoy operating in chaos and misleading those who would rather not think for themselves. It's easier to scream, yell, burn, and smash than to sit down with someone you disagree with and have a reasoned discussion with them on the matter. Heck, you might find yourself (gasp!) AGREEING with your "enemy" in some ways. You might find that (OMG!!) they have some legitimate points. You may learn (No, It Can't Be True!!!) that you can disagree with someone without hating them.
     Yah, right. That won't be happening anytime soon. Anger is too much fun!

     As usual, I'm going slightly off-track. My point has been that destructive anger has taken over as the primary means of social discourse. Instead of behaving like a rational adult (I know, that statement is a micro-aggression. I'm not sorry), Americans have decided to do away with equality, equal opportunity, peaceful coexistence, and now want to have everything given to them, and for their juvenile temper tantrums to be acceptable. This reminds of a 4-year-old I knew quite a while back. With the right guidance, she grew out of that. It was a phase that needed direction towards something more constructive. We, as a society, were on the way to that. We were working towards "whatever floats your boat, so long as it doesn't sink mine" (which is one of my personal-favorite bumper stickers). "If you work hard and are good at something, you can be successful" has been replaced with "I shouldn't have to work. Your ancestors were mean to my ancestors, so you should give me what you have worked for". That isn't in a specific "racial" context, it is the underlying cry of every social group in existence now. Black, brown, Muslim, female, immigrant, whatever. Everyone can find a period of history in which their group was treated badly by another, and they've been taught that they therefore deserve to have things given to them.

     This is the opposite of equality. This is destructive to the harmony I was raised to see as the ultimate goal. I know, I know, I'm speaking from a privileged position as an Anglo cis-male with an education, secure(?) job, etc. Ignore world history in the mid 20th Century, please; it'll only muddy the waters. Anyway, history has shown that the only way to truly move forward is to forgive. Recognize that things done in the past were wrong. Remember them so that they aren't repeated out of ignorance, but forgive them. Take the advances that have happened in the interim as steps forward, and build on them. Sure, some positive aspects of western society were built with slaves. Instead of tearing those things down as simply representing slavery and oppression, how about we continue to use them for their positive contributions gleaned now, while remembering the bad aspects of how they came to be? "Wow, Thing X really makes my life better. It's a shame its development was made easier because of slave labor a few generations ago. I should remember their sacrifices and not take Thing X for granted. At the same time, I shouldn't hold THAT generation's crimes against the current generation."
     If we aren't supposed to hold the terrorist activities of certain "Islamist" groups against Muslims as a whole, and we aren't supposed to stereotype all of phenotype A based on the activities of Criminal Gang B, whose members are all from phenotype A, why is it ok to hold the activities of people 200 years ago against the current generation? Why is it ok to hold the activities of James Earl Ray against every other "white" person?! ("White" is such a general term. Seriously, do you have any idea how many sub-groups fall under your generalized term "white"? When did Armenians hold slaves in America? When did Swabian Germans oppress Native Americans? Seriously, it gets old!).
     None of my arguments for an objective approach will make a difference. Too many spoiled westerners are addicted to their anger. We will continue to suppress liberal (in the classical sense, not the modern use of the term) speech on university campuses because anyone who doesn't agree with so-called progressives is engaged in micro-aggressions, is racist/sexist/genderist/whateverist and shouldn't be allowed to talk. No matter they agree with the concept you claim to espouse, they just disagree with how you're going about expressing it, as with Professor Weinstein:

     No, we need to shout you down because you don't go along with our narrative. 

     So, I'll shut up for the moment, until I feel another righteous indignation at how inequality is ok, so long as it's directed towards me.