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.
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.
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.
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.
That tendency reminds me of this old joke:
A young man walks into a bar in Ireland and sits next to a really old guy drinking a beer. And the old guy’s like, “Did you see that wall on your way into town?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I built that wall with my own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Mason? Noooo.” Then he’s like, “Did you see those cabinets on your way into the bar?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I build those cabinets with me own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Carpenter? Noooo.” Then he says, “Did you see the iron gates on the way into town?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I built those gates with me own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Smith? Noooo. But you fuck one goat…”
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
“True colors” is typically used to refer to acts of selfishness and betrayal, a loss of trust in how friendly or kind one appears to be.
But in the rare case it is used for anger specifically, it indicates a loss of trust in how safe or stable one appears to be.
Even if you’re mostly even-keeled and exhibit emotional stability 9 times out of 10, it’s the 1 in 10 chance you won’t that can instantly become the most salient “color” in your palette.
In other words, it is precisely that 10% chance of emotional disregulation and/or danger, be it real or perceived, that they are describing as your “true colors.”
It has nothing at all to do with the sincerity of your “happy” side.
Defensiveness is natural but IME this accusation is best treated as an opportunity for self-reflection. Anyone who has felt similarly misunderstood should consider discussing with a therapist who specializes in anger management, because the first person to mention an anger problem is rarely the first to have noticed it. Having more control over how you feel is its own reward.
Edit: not directed @ OP, just anyone who has felt similarly accused
My true colours are Gurple and Mzecknys
Only if you’re American
the rest of the comments: https://lemmy.today/post/54375005
