"Why are you so angry" in native English is not a question; it's a question tied to an implication.

The question implies that the person being asked the question is angry. Most answers involve accepting the implication as correct.

The stereotypical example used to demonstrate this in English is probably 'have you stopped beating your wife'. 'Yes' implies that you have a wife and you used to beat her; 'No' implies that you have a wife and you still beat her.

Structuring questions this way is a bad idea because it puts the person you're asking on edge. It's also just kind of a shady way to use the English language. (Nothing against people who aren't familiar with this particular nuance, of course)

I'm aware of it being tied to an implication, but I don't agree with you that "why are you so angry?" is in the same category as the example you gave ("have you stopped beating your wife").

In my view, if I ask you "why are you so angry?" I perceive you as being angry.

> In my view, if I ask you "why are you so angry?" I perceive you as being angry.

If you want to ask a question about the reason for the facts on which you make that inference without telling someone how they feel, you ask the question about the reason for the facts, rather than asking them to explain a mental state that you have inferred about them.

Again, I'm not a native speaker of English, but the obvious way to ask you for the reasons that make you angry is to ask you: "Why are you so angry?" I'm still learning English and would appreciate if you would be kind and teach me an alternative way to ask that question.

The problem is not with the way of asking the question.

The problem is with the assumption about the other person's feelings underlying the premise of the question.

Agree with kevingadd, and to add a bit more to it:

There is another statement between the lines. "Why are you so angry?" implies "This is too unimportant/trivial/false to get angry about." That's the prescriptive part that I think author is referring to.

This can be extra-infuriating, because not only can you not get your listener to engage on the topic at hand, they're outright dismissing this as a problem worth your/their time. To put a cherry on top, they're laying the blame at your feet for getting worked up about "nothing".

It's a lot of implications and insinuations wrapped up in a neat little package. Fundamentally this statement is objectionable because it demonstrates neither understanding of the issue at hand nor a basic amount of respect for the speaker (that he/she is capable of telling major issues apart from trivialities).

If your goal is to belittle and disrespect someone, use this phrase frequently. If your goal is understanding and genuine engagement with someone who thinks and believes differently than you, don't use this phrase at all.

Not to repeat myself, see the answer to kevingadd's comment.

EDIT:

"If your goal is to belittle and disrespect someone, use this phrase frequently. If your goal is understanding and genuine engagement with someone who thinks and believes differently than you, don't use this phrase at all."

I didn't know this. Out of curiosity, how do you ask someone who is obviously angry why he/she/it is being angry?

If someone stole my car, and I come up to you. Angrily:

"vukmir, some asshole stole my car! I can't believe it! I was late to an important meeting! What a fucking shitbag!"

Would you respond with:

"Woah woah, why are you so angry?"

You know why I'm angry. The only context under which "why are you angry" is even a sensical question is one where the thing I'm angry about isn't worth being angry about. Which is also to say "why are you so angry" necessarily entails the dismissal of the subject the speaker is angry about.

edit:

> "how do you ask someone who is obviously angry why he/she/it is being angry?"

How would you respond to my hypothetical rant above, where someone has stolen my car?

If someone stole your car and you tell me that, then I know why are you angry. My question is about a situation when I see you being angry and I don't know the reason why.

>"How would you respond to my hypothetical rant above, where someone has stolen my car?"

Who knows ... perhaps: "That fucking asshole. Look! Here he comes ... Let's kick his ass!"

You say: "Hey that must suck, is there anything I can do to help?" or if you genuinely can't figure it out ask a question about the bit you don't understand: "Let me get this right, someone stole your car and now you're late for a meeting?"

But be careful about asking questions which seem accusatory: "Did you leave your keys in your car? That would be pretty stupid"

Equivalent hypothetical statements in the realm of sexism/discrimination might be: "That sucks, is there anything I can do to help?" or if you're genuinely curious to learn more: "That sounds awful. You've raised some good points, are there any resources I can read so I can further understand?" but don't say: "You weren't wearing those hot-pants were you? That would be pretty stupid"

> I have to admit ... I'm not a native speaker of English, but asking a question and "telling you how to feel" are two different things.

They are in general, but they aren't in the specific case where the premise on which the question is based is a claim about the feelings of the person to whom the question is addressed, e.g., "Why are you so angry?", which is equivalent to "You are so angry. Why is that?"