Passive aggression

[mickthinks]

Normally I rarely meet anyone who uses the term "passive aggressive" and I've never needed to know what it means. Suddenly I'm here and everyone is bandying it about as if it was important. Does it mean anything? Should I be worried about it?

Mick

[Watser?]

There:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster

: being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by the expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive passive way (as through procrastination and stubbornness)

For instance: refusing to let go of a discussion after it has been beaten to death, zombified and beaten to death again and then starting thread after new thread to prove your point

[mickthinks]

Hello Watser?

For instance: refusing to let go of a discussion after it has been beaten to death ...

I think this means I'm 'passive agressive' if I don't stop when you want me to. I'll wear that badge with some pride, I think.

Mick

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Hello Watser?

For instance: refusing to let go of a discussion after it has been beaten to death ...

I think this means I'm 'passive agressive' if I don't stop when you want me to. I'll wear that badge with some pride, I think.

Mick

Stop, don't stop, I've lost interest a long time ago

[mickthinks]

I've lost interest a long time ago
And yet you continue to post your wisdom for everyone else's benefit! Such altruism!

[Pinecone]

Yeah you should... passive aggressive people are meanies.

[viscousmemories]

I use the term to describe hostility couched in seemingly innocuous, or even charitable, comments. See 90% of your posts for examples.

Mommy, the creepy music's starting to play again...

[Zadalya]

Originally Posted by Uthgar the Brazen

Mommy, the creepy music's starting to play again...

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by Uthgar the Brazen

Mommy, the creepy music's starting to play again...

[mickthinks]

Hello viscousmemories!

I use the term to describe hostility couched in seemingly innocuous, or even charitable, comments. See 90% of your posts for examples.

So it seems to work like this;

• I disagree and argue with you, which is hostility.
• I am nice about it, which is 'passive aggression'.
• The nicer I am, the more 'passive aggressive' I am.
• My nice behaviour becomes the thing you fight about.

Mick

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I disagree and argue with you, which is hostility.

No, I don't consider disagreement or argumentation hostility per se, it's all in the delivery.

I am nice about it, which is 'passive aggression'.

No, pretending to be nice, when in context it's obvious that you're not being nice.

The nicer I am, the more 'passive aggressive' I am.

Nope.

My nice behaviour becomes the thing you fight about.

This conclusion wouldn't follow from your premises even if they were correct.

[mickthinks]

Thanks viscousmemories!

I don't consider disagreement or argumentation hostility per se, it's all in the delivery.

The delivery is innocuous and even charitable, according to your explanation.

Mick

[mickthinks]

Hello viscousmemories

No ['passive aggression' is not disagreeing and arguing nicely], pretending to be nice, when in context it's obvious that you're not being nice.

When I said 'Thanks viscousmemories!' I wasn't pretending to thank you. I was really thanking you. The way you describe it, one person projects their feelings of hostility toward another onto the other's posts and calls it "passive aggression".

Mick

[mickthinks]

Hello again viscousmemories!

My nice behaviour becomes the thing you fight about.
This conclusion wouldn't follow from your premises even if they were correct.

I agree, it isn't intended as a conclusion from premises. It's an observation, and I think it is an accurate one. The whole point of ad hominems like "Ooooh! Passive aggressive" is that they are substitute disputes, to maintain your hostility when you realise your position on the real issue has collapsed.

"Passive aggression", the way it is used by almost everyone here, is just a big fat and noxious red herring.

Mick

[erimir]

I prefer aggressive passivity myself.

I think that goes something like "You will do what you want to me, BITCH!"

[Shelli]

[S.Vashti]

Explaining passive-agressive behavior to someone who's modus operandi is passive-agressive, is like explaining narcissism to a narcissist. It simply will not compute.

eta: it has come to my attention that a reader here has not been able to infer that the above statement is a post pointing out the ineffectiveness of explaining behavior to people that can't recognize their own behavior. Thus, I have ammended this post to explain that: I don't think it's an effective use of time to explain passive-agressive behavior to someone that practices it.

It is left as an exercise as to who that reader may be.

[mickthinks]

I have ammended this post to explain that: I don't think it's an effective use of time to explain passive-agressive behavior to someone that practices it.

It's a circularly-argued insult, Chris, and I'm surprised you put your name to it. Even if it were granted for the sake of argument, you'd have also to believe that everyone here practices passive-aggressive behaviour before an unwillingness to explain could be excused as effective time-management.

Mick
I think most if not all "better things to do" defences on internet forums are obvious BS .

[S.Vashti]

I rest my case.

[swan]

I'm going to attempt to comment with no reference whatsoever to the intent of the thread, merely to comment on passive aggression.

I am very passive aggressive in my car. When the person behind is being a prick, wanting to get past, driving too close etc, I slow down. I stay near the centre of the lane to prevent them from overtaking. I smile in my mirrors. My aim is to infuriate the prick driver by sticking to the speed limits.

It's a way of being nasty to someone who I feel deserves it. A real release from my usual angelic ways.

[Zadalya]

Swan, I like your post. It's quite eloquent, and not passive-aggressive

Personally, I am not sure that I even have the capacity to act passive-aggressive.

Mickthinks, I don't know you at all, have no idea if you are passive-aggressive, and the niceness I have read about in the other posts, IMO, has nothing to do with passive aggression ... Perhaps the term is politeness. You are very polite in some of your posts, but all the while I also think you relish playing devil's advocate for the sake of playing devil's advocate. In doing so you reveal very little of your own opinions and feelings. There is a difference between being somewhat objective and being purely rhetorical, and in my humble opinion you seem to do a lot of the latter. It give little substance as to who YOU are, and perhaps how you feel about certain things.
This isn't a matter of 'where do you stand?', more about seeming a bit more human and not deliberately separating yourself from every scenario which is mentioned, and then dipping your toes into the proverbial waters of the discussion, not to be part of it, but simply to see those waters ripple.
Arguing is fine and good when when disagrees - I find it important. But argument for the mere sake of argument feels inauthentic.
Finding out more about who YOU are would be nice, Mickthinks, instead of the smoke and mirrors.
Just my 2 cents for what it is worth.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Zadalya

Swan, I like your post. It's quite eloquent, and not passive-aggressive

Personally, I am not sure that I even have the capacity to act passive-aggressive.

I'm usually either-or, myself.

[mickthinks]

Hello Zadalya!

Arguing is fine and good when when disagrees - I find it important. But argument for the mere sake of argument feels inauthentic.

I think you are assuming that I don't feel strongly about 'the issue', and that would be a mistake. I do feel very strongly about 'it'. However, the first thing to realise is that we may not be talking here of the same issue. I don't care much about Bush being called an asshole. (Though I think that's a weak and inarticulate way of expressing an anger at his administration which needs to be understood better and expressed more constructively.)

I do care a lot about dishonest journalism, and I also care about group prejudice. This is the freethought forum and I am angry at the response from viscousmemories and others to my attempt to discuss my thoughts on those issues.

Mick