All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
People remember how you made them feel. Even if like you are the most clean cut, kind, patient individual. If you show them something alarming it sticks around a while. Like lack of emotional regulation. Angry is fine, but I find a lot of the time when people say they are angry sometimes they then describe something that is violent.
Anyone who says our angry side is our true colors. Or any side of ourselves is our true colors just sounds ignorant and mentally immature.
My true colours are Gurple and Mzecknys
Thats the wrong understanding. You can absolutely be happy and kind with those being your true colors. However, someone pretending to be kind then turns out to be angry and mean, that is that person showing their true colors of not being happy and kind. The colors aren't the emotion, the colors are your authenticity whether happy or angry.
No, the point is that the saying implies that considerable or extreme anger is a thing that emerges from behind a mask of politeness, it implies anger is more authentic.
The conceit is that this phrase is almost never used when someone displays considerable to extreme happiness or sadness.
The phrase is used mostly as a flippant way of dismissing displays of anger, but that it is almost never used to dismiss anything else, implies that people can mostly only be angrier, truly/authentically, than they generally act as.
That's the manupulation inherent in the usage of the term.
You've just tried to recontextualize and thus slightly redefine the term and how it is used, such that it avoids the problems of how the phrase is actually used.
Are you going to tell me that when someone hears good news, and becomes jubilant, or hears tragic news, and breaks down into tears... other people often remark that they're 'showing their true colors'?
I think the point was, both sides exist but arguably there's a bias towards calling the angry side the "true" side. It's also commentary about who gets to decide what the "true" side is.
Just an addendum, I’ve never heard anyone in my many years call anger someone’s true side, except to joke or reference. Tv and books like to do it, though.
You are very lucky.
TV and Books like to do it because it appeals to people who have been hurt, and there are people who do believe it. Can make it easier to move on from bad relationships too, by pretending that the good times were entirely fake and the bad times were the "real".
Like I still don't know why trying to get away with stealing from people was more important to my ex than maintaining a relationship with me, or why her idea of "loyalty" required me to back her against literally the world (mutual friends, some of my own family). I could have overlooked a lot. But stealing from people she called her friends, who had been there for her, one of them a poverty level single mother? No. Stealing from my family who I had a strained relationship with as it was, then lying to me about it? No. It's easier to believe that she was only interested in me for how much money she thought I would make than to think that her feelings were genuine but also that fucked up when it came to property.
It's also especially tough when someone claims to want to work things out but vacillates between whether they treat you like they believe you're really a good (or at least normal) person or really a secret bastard entirely based on their own mood and interpretation of the last few minutes. Months of no issues be damned, you were slightly snarky in a stressful situation, in response to their own short temper, which clearly shows those are your true thoughts and level of (dis)respect for them.
The only context under which I've witnessed it used directly with my own eyes and ears in person and not recorded were scenarios when a manipulative person was trying to coerce obedience in another. The manipulative, abusive individual accuses their victim / target of having "true colors" of a malign variety in order to attempt to motivate them to change their behavior as a defensive reflex to show the manipulator is wrong about them.
It's gaslighting, projection, and DARVO all the way down...
That, I’ve definitely seen. Anger? No. Unless “let the hate flow through you” counts. This might sound obvious but I generally avoid people whose default emotion is anger.
Yeah but none can say who is pretending to be kind and who is authentically kind. This interpretation doesn't leave room for "kind" people to ever get angry or have a moment of weakness where they're unintentionally mean. That's just a recipe for horrible mental health.
Yeah but none can say who is pretending to be kind and who is authentically kind.
Right, which is why when people are kind no one is called out for being kind as their "true colors". You're understanding my position well. Its only when deception is revealed that "true colors" phrase is appropriate.
This interpretation doesn’t leave room for “kind” people to ever get angry or have a moment of weakness where they’re unintentionally mean. That’s just a recipe for horrible mental health.
I don't usually associate "true colors" phrase with a moment of weakness. I would think its the more unforgivable things that rank as someone calling out your "true colors". Example: If a person says they treat everyone with respect equally, but then uses racial slurs against people of color then that would be that person showing their "true (racist) colors".
A regular person will never have a racist-moment-of-weakness. A racist hiding their racism will though. That would be their "true colors".
I think it’s more about the things you do and say when you’re angry than being angry itself
Only if you’re American