5 ms·

I think your idea of defensiveness is different than most people's.

Confusion 16y ago
I think he grasps the meaning of 'defensiveness' better than most others. More and more people have started misusing 'defensive' to mean 'a response to an (implicit) accusation in which the accusation is denied'. That's not what being defensive is. Being defensive is defending the act of which they are being accused. Not denying it. Apart from that semantic mixup, I've never understood why 'being defensive' is a bad thing. Someone accuses someone, not necessarily me, of something, I either defend or deny it and that is then taken as an admission of guilt, because "I'm being defensive". There's really no way out; I'm guilty whatever I say. It's a good thing this cultural mishap hasn't yet propagated to the courts of law...
- bad_user 16y ago
  > Being defensive is defending the act of which they are being accused. Not denying it. NO, being defensive means seeing a lion and either standing still and hope it will go away, running for your life or attacking it ... either way, you're defending yourself in the presence of danger. Of course it is not an admission of guilt.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    Of course it is not an admission of guilt. It is very clearly used as such. 'Being defensive' is meant to be bad thing; it's never used in a neutral or positive way. That's why the analogy from nature fails: 'defending yourself from a lion', in whatever way, is a morally neutral act. 'Being defensive' is not intended to be morally neutral.
    - swombat 16y ago
      Being defensive is seen as a bad thing because you're only defensive when you perceive a serious enough threat. Occasionally, lies can be serious threats, but when it comes to scandals like this, the most serious threat is, in fact, when the scandal does in fact have a solid basis in reality. So, the defensive reactions by both Dave and Ron indicates that there is probably substantial and threatening truth behind Michael Arrington's post.
      - Confusion 16y ago
        So, the defensive reactions by both Dave and Ron indicates that there is probably substantial and threatening truth behind Michael Arrington's post. False rumors, false accusations, slander, etc. can be pretty threatening things that need to be defended against, because they can ruin you. People do not seem to consider that option at all and the only evidence that is given is that the reaction is 'defensive'. I wouldn't like to be a defendant in their court. If you keep silent, you are guilty, because you are hoping it will blow over. If you deny the accusations, you're just doing what you were expected to do and the force of the accusation doesn't wane. When you defend yourself, you're being defensive, which is an admission of guilt, because it acknowledges there was a threat. A sad state of affairs, reminiscent of the witch hunts.

I think he grasps the meaning of 'defensiveness' better than most others. More and more people have started misusing 'defensive' to mean 'a response to an (implicit) accusation in which the accusation is denied'. That's not what being defensive is. Being defensive is defending the act of which they are being accused. Not denying it. Apart from that semantic mixup, I've never understood why 'being defensive' is a bad thing. Someone accuses someone, not necessarily me, of something, I either defend or deny it and that is then taken as an admission of guilt, because "I'm being defensive". There's really no way out; I'm guilty whatever I say. It's a good thing this cultural mishap hasn't yet propagated to the courts of law...

bad_user 16y ago
> Being defensive is defending the act of which they are being accused. Not denying it. NO, being defensive means seeing a lion and either standing still and hope it will go away, running for your life or attacking it ... either way, you're defending yourself in the presence of danger. Of course it is not an admission of guilt.
- Confusion 16y ago
  Of course it is not an admission of guilt. It is very clearly used as such. 'Being defensive' is meant to be bad thing; it's never used in a neutral or positive way. That's why the analogy from nature fails: 'defending yourself from a lion', in whatever way, is a morally neutral act. 'Being defensive' is not intended to be morally neutral.
  - swombat 16y ago
    Being defensive is seen as a bad thing because you're only defensive when you perceive a serious enough threat. Occasionally, lies can be serious threats, but when it comes to scandals like this, the most serious threat is, in fact, when the scandal does in fact have a solid basis in reality. So, the defensive reactions by both Dave and Ron indicates that there is probably substantial and threatening truth behind Michael Arrington's post.
    - Confusion 16y ago
      So, the defensive reactions by both Dave and Ron indicates that there is probably substantial and threatening truth behind Michael Arrington's post. False rumors, false accusations, slander, etc. can be pretty threatening things that need to be defended against, because they can ruin you. People do not seem to consider that option at all and the only evidence that is given is that the reaction is 'defensive'. I wouldn't like to be a defendant in their court. If you keep silent, you are guilty, because you are hoping it will blow over. If you deny the accusations, you're just doing what you were expected to do and the force of the accusation doesn't wane. When you defend yourself, you're being defensive, which is an admission of guilt, because it acknowledges there was a threat. A sad state of affairs, reminiscent of the witch hunts.