It's OK to be angry.

I'm angry a lot these days. And when I'm not angry, I'm numb. That worries me, far more than the anger does.

So when U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, announced last night that her campaign will sell "Impeach the MF" t-shirts, a riff on comments the first-term congresswoman made earlier this year (and a shout-out to alt-newspaper editor Dan Savage's long-running "Impeach the M-----f----- Already" slogan) ... that doesn't bother me.

I understand that our discourse has experienced substantial degradation. That our inability to recognize each other's essential humanity has enabled immediate disasters, like the one at the border, and slow-burn crises like the condition of Detroit's public schools.

But these days, I have little patience for the incessant drumbeat of calls for civility. Too often, civility is used to shut down or sideline an argument that the listener does not wish to evaluate on its merits.

[Rep. Tlaib is stooping to Trump's level with impeachment T-shirts, writes columnist Brian Dickerson. Read his take here.]

Look no further than the extreme, hostile reaction some observers have to Scandinavian teenager Greta Thunberg, whose outspoken advocacy for action on climate change has drawn harsh and sometimes shockingly hostile criticism — that rarely centers on Thunberg's advocacy. Critics slam her age, her affect (Thunberg has Asperger's syndrome) or the authenticity of her activism, saying that she must be the tool of manipulative adults.

And, of course, her anger.

That her anger is justifiable, that any young person — any person of any age, really — should be outraged at what we are allowing to happen to our planet, does not seem to matter. Her anger alone provides sufficient for her critics to dismiss her arguments.

We aren't all allowed to be angry. The anger of non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual or non-cisgender people is too often viewed as distasteful, imprudent or hostile. It can make you a target, for reputational or even physical harm.

Kaffer:Civility is for chumps: In defense of anger

More:Rashida Tlaib: Matty Moroun prepared me for Donald Trump

I often think of something Detroit Future City's Anika Goss-Foster said to me last year, when civility first started to really piss me off. Civility, she said, often seems to mean "I'm expected to be tolerant of things I am not able to be tolerant of."

It's true that Tlaib is a member of a legislative body that will ultimately vote on the serious charges levied against President Donald Trump.

But Tlaib is far from the only member of Congress who has made her feelings publicly known, whether for or against Trump.

If Trump is not impeached, the dynamics of next year's election battle will change. Both sides will work diligently to turn out voters who are motivated, by altruism, by ideology.

And by anger.

When we say "civility," often the tool we really mean to invoke is "empathy." When another human is angry, we should ask why.

Understanding — honoring and recognizing — the anger that many of Tlaib's constituents feel, the anger of Americans who have not historically been allowed to be angry, the anger that prompts us to do something, may be the best way to win.

Nancy Kaffer is a Free Press columnist. Contact: nkaffer@freepress.com.