3 ms·

> passive aggressiveness is used by the powerless and the cowards. Those are potential users of passive-aggressiveness, but if you meant an implied "it's ONLY

by the_af 3y ago

> passive aggressiveness is used by the powerless and the cowards. Those are potential users of passive-aggressiveness, but if you meant an implied "it's ONLY used by...", then you're wrong. The article itself narrates an example where it's used in a context where the person is neither powerless nor a coward.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
What you're trying to say is that it's also used for deflection, which is true, but that falls under cowardice. If you were powerful or not a coward you wouldn't need to deflect for dissemble. When people talk about FU money, this is what they're talking about.
- the_af 3y ago
  I don't think it falls under cowardice, certainly not consciously so. I don't think human behavior can always be classified as either "brave" or "cowardly". (I also disagree that deflection is always a form of cowardice -- not wanting to deal with something directly is sometimes cowardice, sometimes laziness, sometimes tiredness, and sometimes other things). It seems people develop certain behaviors, sometimes defensive, sometimes aggressive, sometimes something other, as they grow up, and they get deployed not always consciously. It took the Aaron of this story at least 1+ therapy sessions to partially unpack what he was doing, and possibly why. It doesn't reek of cowardice to me. He was in a position of power (the money-maker) but wasn't afraid of his partner; rather he felt feelings of irritation which were masked with guilt. "Cowardice" is not how I would describe it.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    Many people are not good with confrontation, passive aggressiveness is generally how you show aggression without confrontation. There can be a myriad of reasons for this, but it's still cowardice. I've read many accounts of people who have found their career's doing better once they have enough money in the bank to feel secure because they're more comfortable taking risks and being outspoken at work. Avoiding risk is what passive aggressiveness is about, hence the cowardice.
    - the_af 3y ago
      I understand you're set in your interpretation, but this doesn't make it true. The article describes something different, and people are not divided in "brave" or "cowards". I also provided other examples of confrontation avoidance that are not motivated by cowardice, e.g. laziness. You can conflate everything with "cowardice", but this makes for a very boring world.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        What you're saying here is that out of laziness someone engaged in aggression rather than staying silent. That's not how aggression works. That doesn't mean people won't rationalize, but it certainly doesn't change the cowardice.
        the_af 3y ago
        Again, you're making assertions with little to back them up except that you believe in them. Human behavior doesn't always get to be divided between "bravery" and "cowardice". There's a full range of behaviors you're failing to acknowledge. The behavior this article and the rest of us are describing is a little more complex.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        The assertion I'm making is that words have meanings. Your argument boils down to "some people are missing limbs therefore they must not be human since the claim is that humans have 2 arms and 2 legs". > Human behavior doesn't always get to be divided between "bravery" and "cowardice". Thankfully we're specifically talking about passive aggressiveness rather than all human behavior.
        the_af 3y ago
        > The assertion I'm making is that words have meanings. No, you are assigning specific meanings to words, and I'm disagreeing with them. "That's not how aggression works" is an assertion you made without anything to back it up. It's just your opinion, and not very well justified either. (You also failed to explain how, in your opinion, aggression does work!). The article itself doesn't show what you claim are the only possibilities for passive aggression.

by the_af 3y ago

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

What you're trying to say is that it's also used for deflection, which is true, but that falls under cowardice. If you were powerful or not a coward you wouldn't need to deflect for dissemble. When people talk about FU money, this is what they're talking about.

the_af 3y ago
I don't think it falls under cowardice, certainly not consciously so. I don't think human behavior can always be classified as either "brave" or "cowardly". (I also disagree that deflection is always a form of cowardice -- not wanting to deal with something directly is sometimes cowardice, sometimes laziness, sometimes tiredness, and sometimes other things). It seems people develop certain behaviors, sometimes defensive, sometimes aggressive, sometimes something other, as they grow up, and they get deployed not always consciously. It took the Aaron of this story at least 1+ therapy sessions to partially unpack what he was doing, and possibly why. It doesn't reek of cowardice to me. He was in a position of power (the money-maker) but wasn't afraid of his partner; rather he felt feelings of irritation which were masked with guilt. "Cowardice" is not how I would describe it.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  Many people are not good with confrontation, passive aggressiveness is generally how you show aggression without confrontation. There can be a myriad of reasons for this, but it's still cowardice. I've read many accounts of people who have found their career's doing better once they have enough money in the bank to feel secure because they're more comfortable taking risks and being outspoken at work. Avoiding risk is what passive aggressiveness is about, hence the cowardice.
  - the_af 3y ago
    I understand you're set in your interpretation, but this doesn't make it true. The article describes something different, and people are not divided in "brave" or "cowards". I also provided other examples of confrontation avoidance that are not motivated by cowardice, e.g. laziness. You can conflate everything with "cowardice", but this makes for a very boring world.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      What you're saying here is that out of laziness someone engaged in aggression rather than staying silent. That's not how aggression works. That doesn't mean people won't rationalize, but it certainly doesn't change the cowardice.
      - the_af 3y ago
        Again, you're making assertions with little to back them up except that you believe in them. Human behavior doesn't always get to be divided between "bravery" and "cowardice". There's a full range of behaviors you're failing to acknowledge. The behavior this article and the rest of us are describing is a little more complex.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        The assertion I'm making is that words have meanings. Your argument boils down to "some people are missing limbs therefore they must not be human since the claim is that humans have 2 arms and 2 legs". > Human behavior doesn't always get to be divided between "bravery" and "cowardice". Thankfully we're specifically talking about passive aggressiveness rather than all human behavior.
        the_af 3y ago
        > The assertion I'm making is that words have meanings. No, you are assigning specific meanings to words, and I'm disagreeing with them. "That's not how aggression works" is an assertion you made without anything to back it up. It's just your opinion, and not very well justified either. (You also failed to explain how, in your opinion, aggression does work!). The article itself doesn't show what you claim are the only possibilities for passive aggression.