There's a quote I really like from Seneca:

“A great part of mankind is not angry with sins, but with sinners.”

It is part of this larger paragraph in Seneca’s book “On anger:”

“We have other men's vices before our eyes, and our own behind our backs: hence it is that a father, who is worse than his son, blames the latter for giving extravagant feasts, and disapproves of the least sign of luxury in another, although he was wont to set no bounds to it in his own case; hence it is that despots are angry with homicides, and thefts are punished by those who despoil temples. A great part of mankind is not angry with sins, but with sinners.
Regard to our own selves will make us more moderate, if we inquire of ourselves:—have we ever committed any crime of this sort? have we ever fallen into this kind of error? is it for our interest that we should condemn this conduct?”

~

It seems that we're often less upset about the mistakes or misdeeds themselves than about the people who commit them.

Think about it carefully and honestly {{username}}: Haven't you ever lost your temper with someone and accused them of this or that behavior when you could have just as easily exhibited the same behavior?

Isn't this anger directed at a specific person rather than a specific action?

I'm not saying
that this is always the case. In some situations, someone has made a mistake, and therefore this justifies your anger. But I'd like to draw your attention to this today and perhaps encourage you to adopt a new attitude, a new way of thinking when you're angry with someone: ask yourself whether what this person has done is objectively wrong and you're therefore right to be angry, or whether, on the contrary, you enjoy being angry with this person?

You should really ask yourself this question,
because if you dig a little deeper,
you may find that the anger you feel is sometimes less a reaction to what was done than to the person who did it.