Should we really not have a tag for extreme anger?
We do progressively increasing tags for the size of everything and amounts/outputs of other things
We don't have to mix and match a blurry line of "is it angry or is it enraged?"
I find the safest way to do those tags is to, if you feel any hesitation or uncertainty, it always goes to the smaller one. You have to be absolute certain to increase.
I'm not particularly making this case for just angry, but states of escalation as a whole.
Because it feels extremely underwhelming if you saw art of someone literally burning with fury or other extreme ends of other emotions, to just go "yup that's angry" and nothing more.

What do you think?

We already have annoyed as a lesser form of angry. I think that's sufficient.

beholding said:
We already have annoyed as a lesser form of angry. I think that's sufficient.

That doesn't address anything I've said...

nin10dope said:
That doesn't address anything I've said...

Yes, it does. We already have two levels of angry, and I think that's sufficient; a third level, which you are proposing, would be unnecessary in my opinion.

beholding said:
Yes, it does. We already have two levels of angry, and I think that's sufficient; a third level, which you are proposing, would be unnecessary in my opinion.

No, it does not. Reread the title and original post once more to understand that this is about extreme escalations of emotions, not "lesser forms". Those two things are not the same.