Why does society shame anger, even when it's justified?

[Deserter]

It's like people are never allowed to be upset about anything. They're expected to smile, bottle up their emotions, and act as if everything is all right.

[HighlyVolatile]

I think at least ideally we could do without it. We can still raise our voices without anger, defend ourselves violently, get an adrenaline rush, and without anger to motivate it. I think it'd require a Stoic superhuman though to resist angry thoughts in heated moments every single time.

[HighlyVolatile]

Typically the proper Stoic way to approach it is not to bottle up/repress emotional impulses though. It's to reframe the thoughts in a more productive way. For example, a horrible day could be reframed in interpretation to a challenging one. Interpreting it as a horrible day might contribute more to stress, anxiety, anger, make us more upset, but interpreting it as a challenging day might not nearl as much.

[HighlyVolatile]

Assuming we don't have any physiological/hormonal problems, typically whether we get angry or upset has all to do with the way we think and interpret events. It's not a matter of what happens to us but how we think about it that can make one person experiencing the exact same thing as another angry or not.

[Juxtapose]

It depends on the situation man. If you drop something in a grocery store and have some unholy fit about it then of course it makes sense for the anger to be shunned.

[bean2k21]

Anger is a primal impetus to take action on something. And that action is rarely anything good.

[Deserter]

That's a lie...

[bean2k21]

Ok genius, so what is anger?

[Deserter]

So it's not justified to react with anger if you're wronged or someone else is wronged? Just smile and take it? You stupid?

[bean2k21]

I'm not easily provoked, and if even I were to use deadly force I wouldn't be angry because it clouds your mind.