Passive aggression

[mickthinks]

Hello again Chris!

'It' wasn't clever the first time which may be why it was ignored.

A reader here has not been able grasp the ineffectiveness of explaining behavior to people that can't recognize their own behavior. I hope this will help: I don't think it's worth the effort trying to explain the crassness of his crass post to someone who thinks that it was so smart that he links back to it.

Mick

[mickthinks]

Thanks LadyShea!

You've provided an illustration of a very real problem, and I can sympathise. I certainly didn't intend to give you the impression that I couldn't understand anyone ever getting annoyed at another person's forum manners. But just because sometimes our annoyance at others is reasonable doesn't make it always so. After all, it has been known for people to get annoyed simply because they've made themselves look stupid, or because they don't want to admit that they've been dishonest*. If annoyance were always the fault of the alleged 'annoyer', society would never have advanced beyond Henry II and Thomas à Becket.

May I also point out that your anecdote doesn't actually respond any of the points left over from our previous exchanges.

• I think most allegations of passive aggression at are attempts by one party to blame their own hostility on the other person and win sympathy for what might otherwise be inexcusable behaviour.
• Can we can rule out the possibility of the fallacious ad hominem argument "We can safely ignore the merit in your argument and instead pillory you for your politeness because you are 'passive aggressive'"?
• There's a danger that, in the absense of a concensus on what 'passive aggression' is, the phrase becomes code for "it's your fault I can't handle my anger".

No refutation of the points presented, no arguments against the points, just a complete switch of subject. If I were to suggest that you had discontinued the previous discussion and started a new one, would that annoy you?

Mick
* I think this may be the real reason Hugo banned me from the Galiean Library, for example.

[LadyShea]

I used my anecdote to illustrate what I feel is frustrating passive aggressive behavior (and I thought on topic for the general discussion of passive-aggression)....namely engaging full throttle when it's opinions only then withdrawing when anything substantive is brought in to the discussion.

I don't think there can be a consensus because we are discussing several possible behaviors that can be perceived as passive aggressive, and some people are NOT annoyed by one, or several, or any of them and others are annoyed by all of them and the annoyance varies in degree from person to person.

I can't even say your perceptions are wrong, either. It's all just opinion and feelings on this one, IMO.

[S.Vashti]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Hello again Chris!

'It' wasn't clever the first time which may be why it was ignored.

A reader here has not been able grasp the ineffectiveness of explaining behavior to people that can't recognize their own behavior. I hope this will help: I don't think it's worth the effort trying to explain the crassness of his crass post to someone who thinks that it was so smart that he links back to it.

Mick

Looks at my info under my avatar. Looks a mickthinks. Shakes head.

[mickthinks]

LOL! You saying I should make allowances bcause you're a woman, Chris?

[S.Vashti]

Hardly. I'm saying that you are inattentive, and that's a shame.
Your attempts to infer motives of others seem so very off; missing the mark, and there's little anyone can do about that.

[mickthinks]

I'm saying that you are inattentive… …to what's completely irrelevant! Thanks Chris, for another masterful intervention. No doubt you'll soon be criticising my choice of underwear.

Mick

[ZEZOZE]

mick...the passive/aggressive argument that gets used here from time to time is bullshit. you know it...i know it...others will agree...some won't.

get over it.

there are a few assholes here, not worthy of the oxygen they breathe. i just learn how to tolerate them because to me it's important. i take what i learn here and apply it to the real world. find whatever it takes to make it work for you or move on.

you aren't going to stop people from calling you passive/aggressive. in fact, you're now just encouraging that bad behaviour and making it worse for yourself.

you aren't changing anyone's mind.

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by InTheServiceOfZeke

you aren't changing anyone's mind.

And in cyberspace no one can tell if you've changed your underwear.*




* At least, on a forum, like this one, that isn't webcam-enabled.

[ZEZOZE]

hehe

i mean think about it dude- i don't believe in the nonsense, but your obsession with making everybody else see it that way too, leads you to aggressively pursue the topic, while maintaining a calm demeanor.

we are all our own worst enemies

[But]

Originally Posted by InTheServiceOfZeke

there are a few assholes here, not worthy of the oxygen they breathe. i just learn how to tolerate them because to me it's important.

+

you aren't going to stop people from calling you passive/aggressive.

=

[ZEZOZE]

i said it very matter-of-factly. there are oxygen wasters all over the planet. your comparison is silly.

[mickthinks]

Aaarrgggghhh! ITSoZ thinks I need his fatherly advice - oh, the ignominy!

[ZEZOZE]

no...i was just trying to be nice and putting my spin on this thread, which i can relate to.

what is even more pathetic, is watching you cater to the people who turn a deaf ear to what you have to say. what did i ever do to you? have we conversed in other threads?

so be it, mickthinks.


michael

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by But

+

=

[davidm]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

* I think this may be the real reason Hugo banned me from the Galiean Library, for example.

Just to clarify:

You were banned there, for behaving the way your are behaving here, despite requests to stop.

This is a free-speech board, which is a great thing, so you can behave here as you wish. TGL is not a free-speech board.

That's all I'm going to say on this matter.

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by InTheServiceOfZeke

you aren't changing anyone's mind.

I have changed people's minds on things before.

It helps to have things like reason and evidence on your side.

It doesn't help to call other people evil.

Are you worth the oxygen you breathe, mr. coy?

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by InTheServiceOfZeke

no...i was just trying to be nice and putting my spin on this thread, which i can relate to.

If that's you being nice, then yog help us all if you ever decide to start being a complete and total asshole. Most posters find you hard enough to tolerate as is.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by Corona688

If that's you being nice, then yog help us all if you ever decide to start being a complete and total asshole. Most posters find you hard enough to tolerate as is.

so be it.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by Corona688

I have changed people's minds on things before.

It helps to have things like reason and evidence on your side.

It doesn't help to call other people evil.

Are you worth the oxygen you breathe, mr. coy?

i have changed more minds than you ever will.

you will note that i am agreeing with him in his argument. he does have reason and evidence on his side. he is still not changing the minds of people that use it like puppet strings to make him behave like the thing he argues against. he's pretty much just droning on now.

how does it hurt to call people evil when they behave that way? it's weird though...ask most evil people and they'll tell you they're good. funny old world.

i am only worth the oxygen i breathe in the pursuit of being happy while hurting nobody. i am often short of breath.

who are you?


michael

[Doctor X]

Why I am infavor of euthanasia.

--J.D.

[Kyuss Apollo]

But Doctor, it'd be an awful short pissing contest, and what's the entertainment value in that?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

The point here is that I think Crumb realises, but is reluctant to admit, that 'passive aggressive' is really just a knee-jerk reaction used by viscousmemories and others because it is easier than saying what really bugs them about my posts.

Okay, since you're still flailing away on this ex-horse three weeks later, I'll give it another shot. However one defines "passive aggressive", it is demonstrably false that I used the term because it was easier than saying what "really" bugs me about your posts. On the contrary, I told you exactly what else really bugged me about your posts in the very post where I accused you of passive aggressive behavior.

Here, refresh your memory with my original post.

See how I described your greetings as passive aggressive, then went on to explain that my main issue was with your abusive ad hominems, because they indicate shoddy reasoning? (I now understand that the words "passive aggressive" thrust you into a blind rage from which you couldn't see anything else anyone said, so I'm putting the actual key words in bold to help you stay on target.)

Now if my sarcastic comment about your stupid greetings was my irrational, knee-jerk easy way out, how do you explain the fact that I gave a very specific example of the behavior that I thought was passive aggressive (ie. saying "Thanks!" when no reasonable person would believe that you are thankful), then went on to mention other things that bothered me about your posts? Doesn't that seem a little too... I don't know, thought-out?

Now maybe I was wrong about your "Thanks!" being passive aggressive. Maybe you have some kind of social or mental abnormality that makes you oblivious to the apparent hypocrisy in saying "Thanks viscousmemories!" when it is unlikely that you are actually thankful. I don't know. But as anyone can plainly see, your repeated claim that I pulled "passive aggressive" out of thin air simply because I'm too lazy, thoughtless or timid to tell you what I really think obviously holds no water. And as clear as it is that you are wrong in this instance, it's even more clear that the general rule about me (and others here) that you have extrapolated from this gross misunderstanding of my comments is wrong too.

[mickthinks]

Thanks viscousmemories!

Okay, since you're still flailing away on this ex-horse three weeks later, I'll give it another shot.
It isn't an ex-horse, viscous; it's an unfinished discussion. The dead horse metaphor is often a self-serving one, and I think it is unhelpful here.

I told you exactly what else really bugged me about your posts …
It is true that your "passive-aggression" complaint wasn't the only criticism in your post. That doesn't prove that it wasn't a cover for further unstated gripes. I believe that many of our emotional reactions to other people are generated from our unconscious minds and it can take a lot of self-examination to uncover all the real reasons why someone or something makes us angry. I wouldn't blame you for being unconscious of some of the reasons why my posts have made you angry, but I think you would be wrong to deny that possibility.

…my main issue was with your abusive ad hominems, because they indicate shoddy reasoning
Then it was a mistake to confuse the issues. I lost all confidence in trying to reason with you after your unreasonable attack on my saying "Thanks, viscousmemories". It suggested to me that you were unable to distance yourself from your emotions enough to see things clearly and debate responsibly.

ETA: …when no reasonable person would believe that you are thankful… Why shouldn't people believe me? I think this is an unreasonable conjecture. Unless you can support it with some firm evidence, may I ask you to withdraw it?

Mick

[Plant Woman]

There is no way anyone can ever have a meaningful and thought provoking discussion with a personality such as what you are dealing with here. This is clearly some sick game and you are all pawns. I would say this person isn't so much passive-aggressive, more likely this is narcissistic behavior. And if you ever have lived with one you can spot them a mile away, and you know you can never be more than a pawn in their lives. The best thing is to disengage and distance yourself as far away as possible, because this person will never acknowledge you in anyway.