4 ms·

Many people are not good with confrontation, passive aggressiveness is generally how you show aggression without confrontation. There can be a myriad of reason

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.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        These are not my definitions. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passive-aggressive https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passive-aggressiv... --- Where you got stuck was in describing passive aggressive behavior as being motivated by laziness. It's a rationalization, a person could choose not to engage at all and that might be laziness, but to engage using passive aggressive behavior is to choose to be aggressive without honesty. People do so in environments where they are powerless or cowardly.
        the_af 3y ago
        > These are not my definitions. Great! In what way do you think those dictionary definitions support your point of view? > Where you got stuck was in describing passive aggressive behavior as being motivated by laziness No, that was merely an example. I'm not stuck, though I think you are when you claim that only by powerlessness or cowardice can passive-aggressivity be motivated. I didn't claim laziness was the only motivation! > It's a rationalization This explains nothing. > People do so in environments where they are powerless or cowardly. That's your opinion, which you've so far failed to support. Actually, what you failed to support is that those are the ONLY environments in which people behave in passive-aggressive ways; I don't disagree they are possible motivations (before, I gave you an "out" which you didn't take, so now you're locked in a hard to justify position of "it's the ONLY motivation" -- in a sense you're truly "stuck"!).

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.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        These are not my definitions. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passive-aggressive https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passive-aggressiv... --- Where you got stuck was in describing passive aggressive behavior as being motivated by laziness. It's a rationalization, a person could choose not to engage at all and that might be laziness, but to engage using passive aggressive behavior is to choose to be aggressive without honesty. People do so in environments where they are powerless or cowardly.
        the_af 3y ago
        > These are not my definitions. Great! In what way do you think those dictionary definitions support your point of view? > Where you got stuck was in describing passive aggressive behavior as being motivated by laziness No, that was merely an example. I'm not stuck, though I think you are when you claim that only by powerlessness or cowardice can passive-aggressivity be motivated. I didn't claim laziness was the only motivation! > It's a rationalization This explains nothing. > People do so in environments where they are powerless or cowardly. That's your opinion, which you've so far failed to support. Actually, what you failed to support is that those are the ONLY environments in which people behave in passive-aggressive ways; I don't disagree they are possible motivations (before, I gave you an "out" which you didn't take, so now you're locked in a hard to justify position of "it's the ONLY motivation" -- in a sense you're truly "stuck"!).