8 ms·
Sorry you feel that way: why passive aggression took over the world
- SirMaster 3y agoI think people attribute things to passive aggression way too much. Sometimes I’m just lazy…
- pelagicAustral 3y agohttps://archive.is/RdtTX https://archive.is/RdtTX
- naremu 3y agoIs it just me, or are others unable to get past the captchas on archive.is with firefox?
- jader201 3y agoWhy did neonate's archive link (posted well after this one) get pinned instead of this one? I don't really care -- it's not a big deal to me. Mostly just curious to understand more about how HN works, and the decisions around things like this.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agopassive aggressiveness is used by the powerless and the cowards. if you weren't powerless you wouldn't need to be passive aggressive and if you weren't a coward you'd take the risk associated with being truthful.
- passion__desire 3y agoThere are multiple kinds of powers. Power of money e.g. JK Rowling. Or power of social wind blowing your way as some groups tried to silence her.
- simmer 3y agoCriticism =/= silencing.
- whythre 3y agoDeath threats = silencing.
- amanaplanacanal 3y agoDeath threats should be investigated and prosecuted. People are still allowed to criticize illiberal opinions.
- passion__desire 3y agoThe problem isn't opinions but inconsistent ones which the Left is imposing on others. Here's Richard Dawkins tearing apart the Left's logic. A white woman identifying as black women is bad while a man identifying as a woman is ok.
- Wistar 3y agoA recent Ken White (Popehat) essay: “My Free Speech Means You Have To Shut Up” https://popehat.substack.com/p/my-free-speech-means-you-have-to https://popehat.substack.com/p/my-free-speech-means-you-have...
- oatmeal1 3y agoThe comment you're replying to is accurate. The intent is to silence her.
- 3y ago
- alexjplant 3y agoMy personal favorite is the third-person equivalent "if that's what makes them happy..." While this turn of phrase can be used to talk about an innocuous difference of opinion I've heard it abused a _lot_ in professional settings by low-performing obstructionists who are entrenched and upset with others that make their coasting more difficult or move on to better opportunities. "Mary wants to go make more money at a place that doesn't play security theatre with 15-year-old EOL'd web frameworks? If that's what makes them happy..."
- _Parfait_ 3y agohuh? I've only heard that said if someone has an unattractive s.o.
- Loughla 3y agoThat's an interesting take. I use that phrase a lot, but in a sincere way. I use it to mean - I don't understand why they're into it, but if that's what makes them happy, then that's really what's important. It's not for me, but it could be for someone else, sort of thing. Language is weird.
- ata_aman 3y agoI think it comes down to tone and which word from that phrase is emphasized. But I agree with you as well, I always took it as "its none of my business and if it makes them happy then that's all that matters"
- ravenstine 3y agoYeah, I sometimes use that phrase in reference to a person doing something I wouldn't do but without the intention of begrudging them of it. I hate to think anyone has ever thought I was being passive aggressive over such phrasing.
- bee_rider 3y agoIMO this is one of the annoying things about passive aggression. It has stolen the language of “I don’t get it but I’m happy for those who do” and made it into something mean spirited.
- hydrok9 3y ago"I'm so glad you believe that, Strong Bad!"
- reedf1 3y agoThe intro had me totally stun locked, it seemed to present a complete scenario and I was struggling to understand the context. There is much more explanation significantly though the article (for others a bit confused by it).
- ecshafer 3y agoIt seems this was a real story told by someone that actually happened from the "on my couch" part afterwards.
- dmurray 3y ago> As society has elevated the status of victims past and present, it is unsurprising that passive aggression has become one of the dominant social dynamics of our age. I liked this interpretation of events. Celebration of victimhood is surely at an all time high. Should we expect this trend to continue, or will we ("educated" "sophisticated" people in Western society) return to celebrating the powerful and the successful like most other societies before us?
- AlecSchueler 3y agoI think this is a case of equality feeling like oppression for the oppressor. When I champiom the voices of victims I do so because their voices are already quietened. The voices of champions are still by far the loudest even if we do go out of our ways more than ever to include others.
- bequanna 3y agoI think the issue here is that people see some benefit from being able to claim victim status so there is a push to expand the definition of what a victim is. If you want to know why people have a problem with this consider that both a genocide survivor and micro-aggression survivor will claim victim status. The latter doing so with a straight face and often more fervor.
- etchalon 3y agoBut, aren't both victims? Forcing anyone who has been subjected to anything to do so only if their suffering was as bad, relatively, as another arbitrary example, means the word "victim" has no real use, beyond some imaginary situation of absolute suffering. Anyone could challenge anyone's claim to victimhood just by pointing out a potentially worse situation for someone else.
- NikolaNovak 3y agoI came from a country which was... not particularly liberal or progressive. My dad is pushing 80. So he has at times some pretty old school knee jerk reactions about social progress. About once a decade he asks, somewhat grouchily, "Why are we suddenly talking so much about group X??" And the best answer I came up with, after years of conversations, to foster mutual understanding was: "because it's their turn! We made some progress with group Y, then we tackled group Z, and now we are trying to bring equality to group X. It doesn't detract from groups Y or Z we tackled in the past, the groups A & B that pretty much have power, or groups P & Q we should tackle in the future". In this grossly oversimplifed view of progress, we worked on / fought to give women right to vote and maybe even some rights, then we worked to give all races vote and maybe even some rights, then we turned to give gays and lesbians maybe some recognition and equality, now we are working on trans, etc. It does not take away from me as a tall white male! And giving african american voting rights did not take away from women having voting rights :). It's GOOD to keep going after all inequalities, rather than saying "Group A inequality is worse, so fuck off and shut up". That's not how we progress. Where I'm going with this - it's OK for both genocide survivor, and micro-aggression survivor, to claim victim status! We don't all have to have the same degree, and it's OK to help more and more people and fight for better and better equality :). Another analogy, if you will - when I moved to USA after years of civil war in the old country, my host family tried to use me as a scarecrow to their kids. "Eat your dinner, think of all the people in $COUNTRY who don't have food". That stopped when I indicated, politely & lovingly, that kids in $COUNTRY could not care less whether 9 year old Tommy in Minnesota ate his veggies or not. So as a survivor of civil war (and attempted or successful genocide depending on which side / country / historian you listen to, they're still figuring this out:), let me assure you I am not offended by micro-aggression survivors claiming victim status :)
- Hydraulix989 3y agoAs an Eastern European, also on the spectrum, this nature of passive aggressive communication proliferating especially in the Bay Area really grates me. I prefer to resolve conflicts directly; it's more efficient.
- twelve40 3y agoit might be your preference, but what happens when you can't? e.g. when someone you can't confront directly says or does something that's really not to your liking?
- tekla 3y ago> when someone you can't confront directly Example please.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- krab 3y agoYou mean can't as in "directly affects the outcome of the present situation"? Like when I'm at a bureaucrat's office and he's going to hand me the document I need? Or trying to close a deal? Then I just shut up. Or do you mean can't as in "the person is in a more powerful position in general"? Then I'll tell them directly but in a polite way. In the worst case we won't make business together.
- sctb 3y agoI'm not too fussy about efficiency, but one of the things about passive aggression that drives me crazy is the pretence. Passivity makes the communication as though it never happened, except everyone knows that it did. To many autistic people this seems literally insane.
- hinkley 3y ago“Jan Maas is not being rude, he’s just being Dutch.”
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
- realce 3y agoThe aversion to telling the bald truth increases as the consequences for telling the truth become more severe.
- gtirloni 3y agoI usually don't have much patience for passive-aggressive people in general. If you want to say something, just say it. It's not efficient otherwise. That being said, passive-aggressiveness is also communicating something extra on top of the question at hand. That's what makes it infuriating for me because now we're discussing two issues, the actual issue and your hidden interpersonal issue. Both are probably valid things to discuss but in clear way, not with constantly second guessing.
- riku_iki 3y ago> If you want to say something, just say it. at workspace, it may mean saying "go away, I don't want to talk about your bs", but saying it directly is against rules.
- grahamgooch 3y agoWe can agree to disagree :)
- Wistar 3y agoWe’ll just have to.
- neonate 3y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20231128172659/https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/11/21/sorry-you-feel-that-way-why-passive-aggression-took-over-the-world https://web.archive.org/web/20231128172659/https://www.econo... https://archive.ph/RdtTX https://archive.ph/RdtTX
- orsenthil 3y agoCan someone explain like I am five, what is "passive aggression" ?
- MattGaiser 3y agoYou dislike something, disapprove, or disagree, but express that disagreement through something like simply not inviting the person you disagree with to the next meeting rather than telling them you disagree and why.
- drivers99 3y agoThis page seems good https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/passive-aggression https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/passive-aggression
- jlmorton 3y agoBasically taking some action to indirectly signal dissatisfaction rather than directly confronting it. This could be many things. As the article says, it could be as simple as procrastination. It could also be something more insidious, like Bob works late every evening, so Sally forgets to feed Bob's dog in the morning.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rprenger 3y agoI think it's like: Passive: Uh, your code looks great! Aggressive: Your code is garbage! Assertive: Your code is broken. Passive-Aggressive: It's great that you think your garbage code is great!
- hinkley 3y agoCommon movie trope: I love how you can just wear anything. Which is a subtle way to say your clothes are trash and I wouldn’t be caught dead with those even in the same room as me. You’re slagging the listener while sounding like you’re giving a complement.
- 3y ago
- gazelle21 3y ago[dead]
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y agoAt least it is better than aggressive aggression. Examples from the past: Andrew Jackson shot Charles Dickinson to death in a duel over an insult to his wife. Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton to death in a duel. Alexander the Great threw a javelin at his friend Cleitus the Black (who had saved his life) killing him during a drunken dispute at a banquet. I much prefer the passive aggressive variety.
- BiteCode_dev 3y agoI much prefer somebody expressing irration in a direct way, even if this can be aggressive. Because it ends there. Passieve aggressiveness is a damocles sword.
- twelve40 3y agoOutside of weird edge cases, most aggression has a root cause. If the root cause is not removed, how is it that it magically "ends there"? expressing irritation seems like only the beginning and not the end at all.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agobecause direct aggression allows the other person to better understand you, whereas passive aggression does not.
- BiteCode_dev 3y agoThe conflict can be dealt with right now. Passive agressiveness built up over time.
- fluoridation 3y agoSurely one can be actively aggressive without being violent.
- mnw21cam 3y agoAbsolutely. The aggressive alternative to "I'm sorry you feel that way" is "I'm not interested", "I'm not going to help you with this", or even just "No". I'd also like to point out that saying these things isn't necessarily morally wrong - it depends on the circumstances.
- asylteltine 3y agoI’m a fan of aggressive aggression. Don’t be a baby; get shit off your chest like a man and then get over it.
- darkerside 3y agoThat works in some cases. In others, you escalate a situation that could have been easily defused.
- asylteltine 3y agoI guess it can depend but in my experience men solve interpersonal issues with noise and aggression, and it very quickly disappears after because it is addressed. I’ve noticed women do the exact opposite which makes them hate each other for years
- darkerside 3y agoIt resolved because one party established dominance over the other. And for decisions that don't matter, that's a fine way of making them, if a bit unfair to those who are more timid and less aggressive. For decisions that are important, they are usually best resolved through a trusted conversation about diverse opinions.
- asylteltine 3y agoThat sounds very feminine and just the same thing in different forms. Men need to establish themselves. “Talking stuff out” doesn’t make anyone feel better you need to express yourself
- darkerside 3y agoInsecurity is also pretty feminine. Understanding where true power comes from is key to manhood.
- pizzafeelsright 3y agoWithout the ability to handle confrontation in a way that does not lead to violence our weapons are limited. The most common methods are employed by infants and children like volume and tone until the attack evolves past the material of the confrontation (ideas, actions, response) to the extensions of the person starting with identity (individual), reputation (community), and eventually societal (race, gender, occupation, legal, citizenship). I would say based upon my understanding and history that once you attack the societal element of a reasonable person they will respond with violence - or their aggression will become not-passive. Today, for a variety of reasons, I believe that identity has shifted from self to societal which is why there are some people that if you disagree with their personal choices will respond with violence. These people cannot be reasoned with nor have productive discussions about the topic without personal, reputation, or societal attacks.
- etchalon 3y agoThis strikes me as: A. Something there is no way to provably measure; B. a claim the article provides no data to prove has increased; C. and a potential "diagnostic" that says more about the person diagnosing the problem than anything else. All of the articles broad claims are just … things being said.
- alex_lav 3y agoThese comments are Twitter-reply level bad. “Be a man”, said unironically.
- squigz 3y agoUnfortunately it's pretty much what I expected going into this. I feel like the discourse here on HN has really devolved over the past few months...
- the_only_law 3y agoIt's been trending this way for a couple years at least, but yes its been particularly bad in the past few months. Feels infested with schizoposters and their the idiot reply guys and the 50 year old reactionary tech dweebs who suddenly things they're part of some sort of master race and spout undergrad tier philosophy knowledge to look smart.
- surgical_fire 3y agoI'm the last person that will defend HN. Outside of very narrow technical subjects, it is chock full of terrible takes, clearly written by fairly ignorant people that think very highly of themselves. This is especially prominent in topics that touch upon economics, politics or philosophy. That said, I don't really see passive aggressiveness as a problem. I mean, if people decide to be passive about their aggression, this gives me free pass to be passive about my disdain too.
- swatcoder 3y agoA sincere "sorry you feel that way" is only passive agressive in a culture that prefers emotional gestures like shame and contrition to practical gestures like reciprocity and restitution. In a culture that inverts those preferences, it's an acknowledgment of a new debt of reciprocity. "I recognize that you're negatively impacted and ask you let me make you whole again" We're in a bit of a weird and untenable cultural moment right now, where we allow anyone to call themselves a victim and insist that some other admit to an internal feeling of contrition. When that contrition isn't sincerely felt, which is natural in many cases, that's when we end up with both the vacuous and passive agressive "sorry you feel that way" and the equally vacuous and performative public apology. In a world where we focus more on exrtrinsic actions and reciprocity rather than making demands of each others internal state, both forms of vacuousness go away: people do step on each others feet now and then, as happens, but the stepper helps the stepped find their footing again and both move on with their lives.
- kqr 3y agoI think you are missing the point. The salient difference is between "I'm sorry you feel that way" and "I'm sorry my actions made you feel that way". For some people, the latter is implicit in the former, but for some people it's not and then it becomes very shallow.
- webnrrd2k 3y agoYeah - I take "I'm sorry you feel that way" as a way of blaming the victim for their feelings, as a subtle way of blaming them for having inappropriate or out-of-control feelings. And sometimes that's true, but, the majority of the time, that's the wrong reason.
- swatcoder 3y agoYes, you're articulating the bizarre dance of people trying to have a say in each others internal state. The victim wants the offender to feel contrite and the offender wants to the victim to feel less hurt. Since nobody seems to have complete control over these seemingly internal states, and no reliable way to measure them in each other, you end up with this unresolvable performative dance where each party tries to control the other's subjective experience. And what shakes out of that is people inevitably calling each other insincere, insensitive, passive agressive, out-of-control, etc
- darkerside 3y ago> common expression of fear of dependency, latent in us as well as family and colleagues I thought this alternative definition was interesting. In a society that is increasingly interdependent, doesn't that make this fear stronger than ever?
- calf 3y agoI couldn't follow this explanation: "Aaron could find some emotional relief because he caught sight of the anger and resentment he had so long been denying. Once he had this knowledge, the question of whether his anger was justified fell away; no longer bearing down on him in secret, its force simply faded." So Aaron briefly realizes his own resentment and anger toward his musician husband's lifestyle. Then can't he be even more angry about it?
- kdmccormick 3y agoThe idea is that you can have a belief and derive emotion from it without ever consciously acknowledging the belief. Aaron had some deep-down, partially-formed belief that he worked harder than his partner Jim, without even knowing it. That subconscious belief led him to be passively aggessive. By acknowledging that belief and the associated anger, he can now look at the belief logically and solve it. Does Aaron truly believe that he is a harder worker than Jim, and is that a problem? If so, he should talk to Jim about taking on a side job or more chores, or maybe break up with him. If not, then he should consider what might be fueling that belief. For example, Jim might work his ass off practicing and performing and cooking good food, and perhaps Aaron could do more to appreciate that.
- calf 3y agoExcept the article (seems to) claim that mere cognizance of self-denied thoughts and feelings is enough to make those "fall away", "force faded". There was no intermediate step of logic or problem solving involved. So, I don't get that magic leap argument in the article. Disclosure, I guess maybe I'm more of the "openly hostile"/IDGAF camp like some of the other commenters have expressed, so I find it harder to imagine Aaron's position where they are not even in touch/aware with their inner feelings of anger and resentment about something. Then again the author says everyone is susceptible to being passive aggressive.
- webnrrd2k 3y agoThe original passive-agressive response sucks, because you can't just deal directly with the problem - you have to manage the emotions the other person projects on to the situation. You just have to know the person well enough to tell if those emotions are from, for e.g., job stress or a lack of sleep, or from some deep childhood trauma. I think that the bigger problem is that passive-aggressive responses tend to bleed out into all sorts of other, unrelated situations. At least they do if they aren't talked about. It can be really difficult to discuss as a friend. It can be almost impossible in a work setting.
- oatmeal1 3y ago- In the past, your words were not permanently recorded, so it was much less likely your words could be used against you. - It's not just that we celebrate victims more now. Our level of education now allows us to identify root causes better, meaning we realize that we are victims of our circumstances more than we did before.
- jenkstom 3y agoThe thing that seems to be missed here is that passive aggression is a perfectly valid way to deal with direct and immature aggression, such as you get with personality disorders. Maintaining a level of deniability isn't always a bad thing. And any idealization of "direct aggressiveness" is just an excuse for psychopaths (or NPD, BPD, etc). Of which I've had enough in my life, thank you very much. It's sad that much of the discussion here is effectively excusing fascism. Another case where passive aggression is a perfectly valid and mature coping mechanism.
- mnw21cam 3y agoOh absolutely. The phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way" disconnects you from the other person, and if that is an appropriate thing to do, then it's an appropriate phrase to use. If someone is trying to guilt-trip you into action that you don't morally need to take and don't want to take, then use this phrase. It asserts your boundaries. Also, I'd take issue with the phrase always being passive-aggression. Sure, in certain circumstances it can be used as a passive-aggressive move, but in a situation where you are using it to handle someone who is coming at you with a terrible manipulative sob-story to try to pull you into their fantasy world where you have to help them at every turn, then using this phrase is not passive-aggressive - it's just protecting yourself. Other similar useful phrases are: "I'm sorry to hear that", "That's terrible", "Okay", "Right", "I see".
- futureamish 3y agoWell, a force 10x greater than any standing world army stood against US policing and law. The response, instead of revolutionary change, was for the military to mistakenly side with the failing oligarch republic (see also: the reason people aren't joining the military), then about 10k people tried a coup at the capitol with backing from the acting, defeated president, the SS, the Pentagon, the FBI, and local LEOs, as well as the border patrol, ICE, and DHS. Essentially the government and the People are 100% at odds, the media is portraying it as some 50/50 ordeal, when one party hasn't mustered more than 33% of the popular vote in half of most people's lifetimes, and people are aware that they have no agency in their own institutions, making those institutions entirely moot and void. The passive aggression is the precursor to allegedly powerful people being shown how unimportant they actually are; Nietzsche called it decadence.
- motohagiography 3y agoThe best way to combat passive aggression is to maintain your sense of humour, as laughter is the most reliable filter for others' intentions. It does make enemies though because in misrepresenting their intentions, liars can't laugh freely with someone they're lying to. They won't forgive you for catching them out, and they may lash out from behind the glass or strain against collar of the fictions they have to sustain, but you don't lose much of value. Unfortunately passive aggression is a virus and once you let it into your organization's culture, you have to fire people to get rid of it. I've watched the transition from small company to mid-size one a few times, and it starts with the appointment of a manager who uses or tolerates it, then encourages it in their key subordinates. Within a quarter or two, everyone is trying to figure out why their jobs suck and how others became such a see-you-next-tuesdays. The popular and likeable talent flames out and rage quits, managers who people had actual loyalty for get recruited away, and what's left are gatekeepers and scammers who churn through increasingly jr. and desperate staff until the company gets sold for parts in an acquihire, or languishes as a farm team in some shitty private equity portfolio for a stream of feckless MBA hires to do time in. Develop a personal playbook for handling passive aggression the way people handle sales objections, and practice it, and you will have much better companies for much longer, imo.
- muxator 3y agoThe article ends with: > In a fiercely hierarchical world of bosses and middle managers and underlings, is the very idea of such openness a naive pipe dream? A habdbook case of a final that is a bit too open. There are no hints at all about how to attain this, even partially.
- zoogeny 3y ago> Friedrich Nietzsche [...] regarded morality as the ultimate form of passive aggression – a ruse employed by the weak, resentful masses to restrain the will of their stronger, creative superiors. I think this is an accurate but misleading description of what Nietzsche was trying to communicate. Nietzsche was posing a question: why do we have the morals that we have? He compared morality from ancient Greece to morality in modern Christian Germany. He noticed a difference in that modern Christianity morality appeared to praise the weak in a way that ancient Greece did not. So he has to explain, how and why did that change occur? He provides an explanation: the weaker people in society latched on to a moral idea that gave them some measure of power over the stronger elites. This was an explanation as to why modern Germany had the morals it seemed to have in Nietzsche's time, not a description/definition of morality. He even ponders moral systems that would advantage the elites and considers how they applied in ancient cultures. One idea he puts forth is that whichever moral system personally benefits an individual is the one they are likely to support. One moral code for mice, another moral code for eagles. He just lived at a time and place where he felt that the mice had gained control of the prevailing morality. I feel his argument was that morals were a battleground upon which a larger war was being waged. He seemed to argue that there was some deeper force at work (will to power) and morality was just a vehicle through which it was expressed. One expression of that force was resentful/weak people defining powerful people as "evil". But consider contemporary Christian prosperity doctrines. Their is an implicit belief in that kind of morality that your wealth and power are a result of your righteousness. That is a far cry from the kind of morality that Nietzsche was criticizing. It is a morality where the advantage is on the elites.