Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.~ Hanlon's Razor
Sadly, I have noticed in the past few years that occasionally people get upset and angry in game. People get mad by the things others say, or the things they do. Of course, there is nothing “wrong” with getting angry, i.e. it is a natural thing; the main is not that people get angry, but that they change when they get angry. It seems to me that they “transform” into someone else from the very own moment madness strikes. I think most of you will remember such events, sadly again – and that you don’t have to look far in the past to find examples. I’m thinking about reactions when you point a member at something he or she apparently does wrong, or - more dramatically – when someone gets kicked out of server or clan (or get his ass kicked in game). What these people do, when they get angry, is for all of us a surprise, a shock. Of course you guys notice this yourself, and complain about him or her: “if only I had known that he/she was like that”. However, what most people don’t realize is that they are victims themselves of the very same beast inside them. The very own people who are shocked, can release that beast the next day themselves. My conclusion is that people don’t know how to be angry anymore, they do not control it, and they do not understand what it means “to be angry”.
My objective here is not to form a critique (“you guys are retarded”), or to seek the very metaphysics of rage (though I would think that would be interesting too), but what I want to write here, are some insights, related to “what it is like to be angry”.
I must honestly say that I do not know what it means to be angry, but it is something like the need to express dissatisfaction about someone (by swearing I guess, how effective!), or even the wish to take revenge on the very same person. Why are you angry at someone? Because he or she is doing some bad things, acts without respect, or just is not a good person. But, the fact is that one can be mistaken about this judgment. He could have acted by ignorance, or by inattention, or he or she could just have a bad day. Nonetheless we seem to pay no attention to these factors in our judgment: we judge the person as if he was really just a bad person, acting by full consciousness. British philosopher (for this is a philosophy of anger) P.F. Strawson might clear up what is going on here. He distinguishes two kinds of attitudes towards other persons (in moral judgments): the reactive attitude and the objective attitude. As you approach the issue through a reactive attitude, you take the person seriously: whatever he has done, he did it on purpose, with full consciousness, he or she just is that kind of person. This is how most people most of the times react, and it is our natural reaction (and Strawson says it it also in a way an inevitable reaction).
There is of course no problem with the reactive attitude when that person deserves it, but the question is: does that person deserve to be angry at, or to be insulted? A very important notion here is “Moral Luck” (B. Williams, T. Nagel): Moral luck occurs when someone can be correctly treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that a significant aspect of what he or she has done depends on factors beyond his/her control. For example: the bad action was a result of bad luck during the day, he slipped, he fell, some failures here and there, etc.. He’s pissed and therefore reacts that way, talks that way to us. Or he’s not paying attrition because he’s lazy, tired, or sick. We, however, do not know this background, and judge him as if he is clear in his mind. This is of course a problem, because we can’t really justify that he/she must be responsible for things out of his/her control. There is however a second attitude that Strawson describes: the objective attitude. By this attitude you see the person who messed up not as an evil person, but you put the event in his context. You put it in perspective: he has not done it because he’s evil, but because he just acted plain stupid. He wasn’t looking, or her reaction was the result of a bad day (or childhood). The fact is, that in this case, you don’t get so angry anymore (there might even be some pity).
Though the first attitude is more natural, the second attitude is more “constructive” (at least in the case of anger). Therefore I advise people here to follow Hanlon's Razor in their judgment: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. “Be wise, think twice” before being angry. Next to that, think about what it means to be angry: what can possibly go right in a conversation, once you get angry? To get angry is in fact, to give up the discussion. It is no solution to be angry, because in fact, rage is the expression of the idea that you think there is no reasonable solution. “You can’t reason with him”. To think that way, however, is a bad way, especially when you’re an admin or something like that. So when you guys get angry, think about what it means to be in that state, what the hell you’re trying to achieve that way. And of course: the adversary is in first case stupid, not evil (or disrespectful, arrogant, selfish, …).
That’s all I had to say. Please no stupid comments – I’m serious(ly retarded) here. I’ll respond by an reactive attitude on these:
I’ll see them as evil, disrespectful, arrogant, selfish …
