Reminds me of that bodycam vid of the dude stealing luggage that someone posted a couple months ago.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900726&forum_id=2],#50116604)

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5848479&mc=9&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900726&forum_id=2],#50116612)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900726&forum_id=2],#50116972)

Seems more likely that their mindsets are like the Real Housewives of Atlanta, where they're just in a contest to screech more histrionically than the last, to get attention from each other.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900726&forum_id=2],#50116622)

You let your cunt literal nig wife walk all over you and be a literal druggie + spend all your money + castrate your halfbreed kids

But its OK becase you were "chill" about it all? wow, and you didnt "gnash your teeth" or whatever gay contrived faggy concept you have of being a "tough guy" is

Framing normal people, engaging critically with reality in some childish "wow youre really angry! (thats bad and unchill & scary!) frame is just your pathetic cowardly lib brain incapable of conceiving of anything but being a pushover lib retard cattle

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900726&forum_id=2],#50117965)

A: Yes. Very strongly.

Even if we ignore the slurs and personal attacks, the comment has numerous linguistic markers of anger:

Profanity and insults: repeated use of highly charged profanity and derogatory labels.

Personal targeting: it attacks the recipient's age, political identity, marriage, finances, children, and masculinity rather than merely disputing an argument.

Repetition and escalation: the writer keeps returning to the same themes—“coward,” “pushover,” “chill,” “tough guy”—and intensifies them.

Mockery and sarcasm: “wow,” “haha,” and the repeated quotation marks around concepts like “chill” and “gnash your teeth” are being used contemptuously.

Exaggerated accusations: claims about the recipient's spouse, drug use, spending, and children are presented in deliberately inflammatory terms.

Defensive framing: the writer spends substantial effort attacking the idea that the recipient's emotional composure is evidence of being “chill” or tough. That suggests the writer is emotionally invested in the underlying dispute.

Typographical errors don't make it less angry: the rushed spelling (“tring,” “becase,” etc.) could be consistent with rapid, emotionally charged typing, although typos alone aren't evidence of anger.

I'd characterize it as overtly hostile, contemptuous, and angry, rather than merely argumentative or sarcastic.

There's also an interesting rhetorical feature: the writer is accusing the other person of being obsessed with appearing “chill” while simultaneously displaying a considerable amount of emotional intensity themselves. In other words, the comment's meta-argument is essentially, “You're wrongly interpreting emotional restraint as strength”—but the way the writer makes that argument is itself highly emotionally charged.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900726&forum_id=2],#50117967)