Passive agression

[Space Voyager]

I keep hearing about this passive aggression all over the internet lately, but the more I think about it, the less plausible it seems as a concept.

 

I'll try to keep this short.

 

Being aggressively passive or passively aggressive both seem like quite a paradox, so much a paradox that I can not prevent myself from chuckling when I see the terms used as an actual accusation or description of somebody.

 

But let's look at the other side, too. There are people who whine all the time, people who refuse to "get the point", people who just want to drag the debate into infinity, people who are unable to reach a decision etc. etc., all behaviours that seem to fall under "passive aggressive" description.

I can think of a number of terms than such people could be called. Whiner, dumbass, jerk... You name it. But all these terms hold a certain common denominator. When you say them, you look like an aggressive, not tolerant, rude person. Because frankly, you could just state your case and leave the conversation or ignore the person.

 

So, not being really tolerant, you are unable to ignore a whiner and you just want to tell him to fuck off in a way, but still not seem rude? Why not use a cover-up? Invent something that an aggressive person can use to smack the irritative, but otherwise harmless person with. Better yet, let's make him/her look aggressive as well! The person is obviously passive in terms of confrontation, but he irritates me as if he was calling my mama bad names (which would make him aggressive), so let's call his behaviour "passive aggression".

 

To sum it up - the term really looks like a cover-up for the user's own aggression.

 

Any thoughts?

[silencer_pl]

Giving chance that everone could do everything without any consequences huge majority of people would do killing, raping, stealing etc etc. Sadly say - aggression is in our nature since we were born as predators. Though through evolution we were able to at least control it.

 

Now Internet doesn't have that much of a control over people so many can do what they want. In worst scenario they will be banned and move on to other place.

[Bomb Bloke]

Can't say I've heard the term before.

 

Anyway, it sounds like an alternative label for a troll to me. They're either playing dumb (trolling), or plain dumb; in the latter case, "passive aggression" doesn't fit, as they're not actually intending conflict.

 

The similar phrase "preemptive non-aggression" also comes to mind. Given that that one is associated with a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people, I can just see people getting confused over what "aggressive" means.

[Hobbes]

I keep hearing about this passive aggression all over the internet lately, but the more I think about it, the less plausible it seems as a concept.

 

I'll try to keep this short.

 

Being aggressively passive or passively aggressive both seem like quite a paradox, so much a paradox that I can not prevent myself from chuckling when I see the terms used as an actual accusation or description of somebody.

 

But let's look at the other side, too. There are people who whine all the time, people who refuse to "get the point", people who just want to drag the debate into infinity, people who are unable to reach a decision etc. etc., all behaviours that seem to fall under "passive aggressive" description.

I can think of a number of terms than such people could be called. Whiner, dumbass, jerk... You name it. But all these terms hold a certain common denominator. When you say them, you look like an aggressive, not tolerant, rude person. Because frankly, you could just state your case and leave the conversation or ignore the person.

 

So, not being really tolerant, you are unable to ignore a whiner and you just want to tell him to fuck off in a way, but still not seem rude? Why not use a cover-up? Invent something that an aggressive person can use to smack the irritative, but otherwise harmless person with. Better yet, let's make him/her look aggressive as well! The person is obviously passive in terms of confrontation, but he irritates me as if he was calling my mama bad names (which would make him aggressive), so let's call his behaviour "passive aggression".

 

To sum it up - the term really looks like a cover-up for the user's own aggression.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Passive aggression

[FullAuto]

Passive aggression is an actual thing, an actual set of behaviours, and it's deeply ingrained in us all to some extent, as a way to disagree and yet appear to maintain the status quo. You see examples in notes, emails, face to face etc although it seems to favour methods that allow some distance.

 

I find it deeply annoying and offensive, much more so than simple aggression. I will say though that it's one if those overused phrases on the internet, like "that's a strawman" that makes me want to pop eyeballs with my thumbs.

[Space Voyager]

Passive aggression is an actual thing, an actual set of behaviours, and it's deeply ingrained in us all to some extent, as a way to disagree and yet appear to maintain the status quo. You see examples in notes, emails, face to face etc although it seems to favour methods that allow some distance.

 

I find it deeply annoying and offensive, much more so than simple aggression. I will say though that it's one if those overused phrases on the internet, like "that's a strawman" that makes me want to pop eyeballs with my thumbs.

That there is a set of behaviours which one has huge problems coping with - fine. I find the term "passive aggression" to be completely wrong though.

 

From Hobbes' link:

A person who uses passive-aggressive method to cope with stresses on them does this by 'attacking' others through passive means. Thus the aggressive intent is cloaked by the passive method.

 

Am I missing something? Attacking others through passive means? The closest thing that comes to mind is not helping somebody in need because you hate his guts. But I can't see that as an aggression. Aggression by definition demands action against somebody, it just can not be passive. It can be covert, it can be hidden, it can be lots of things, but passive?

 

@BB: As far as I gathered, troll should fit into "passive aggression", yes.

 

BTW, I didn't mean to start this thread with an intent to find out whether there are people, able to drive you nuts by doing nothing or constantly doing something wrong. There are. It is just the term that makes me wonder if one can really be aggressive through passiveness. Or is that just the perception of the one being affected.

[Hobbes]

From Hobbes' link:

 

 

Am I missing something? Attacking others through passive means? The closest thing that comes to mind is not helping somebody in need because you hate his guts. But I can't see that as an aggression. Aggression by definition demands action against somebody, it just can not be passive. It can be covert, it can be hidden, it can be lots of things, but passive?

 

A question of terminology. 'Passive' here is meant as covert, or hidden under an apparent calm and patient manner. The link gives a basic example: you're asked/told to do something that you don't agree and you acknowledge what's being said but without any intention of actually doing it or with the intent of sabotaging it. It's considered passive because you don't voice your objections/intentions in a direct manner but instead prefer to use low key methods to express it. It's an aggression, or better called 'manipulation' because you are actually deceiving the other person by pretending to acknowledge/accept them while keeping your real intentions hidden.

 

Another example that I'm sure everyone has felt/used: the silent treatment. You say something to someone and wait for his reaction/answer but the person chooses instead not to give any answer, leaving you in incertainty and self-doubt. By saying nothing (being passive) the manipulator keeps the other person dependent ('what did I do wrong? how can I fix it?) and under control, which is a form of aggression.

 

Regarding trolling, many times it doesn't display passive-aggressive traits because the troller keeps its actions and intent of causing confusion/discussion/personal attacks quite open. On the other hand, a manipulative troller will use passive means to hide his intention to provoke conflict and aggression.

[FullAuto]

By that same standard, SV, there can be no such thing as passive resistance.

 

I know that defined in their most common ways the words are contradictory, yes.

[Sunflash]

You're using English. Of course the words don't make sense.

[Space Voyager]

A question of terminology. 'Passive' here is meant as covert, or hidden under an apparent calm and patient manner.

Damn.

 

By that same standard, SV, there can be no such thing as passive resistance.

Damn.

 

I think I may have seen the light.

[FullAuto]

Too clever not to.

 

Even with English as one's first language, there are many things that don't obey 'common sense' rules or appear to be self-contradictory. This is one of them.

[Space Voyager]

Too clever not to.

I'm sure I'll prove you wrong, sooner rather than later...

[Hobbes]

I'm sure I'll prove you wrong, sooner rather than later...

 

Someone is being a little passive aggressive

[Space Voyager]

Ah, now I get it, being passive aggressive means failing at being funny!

 

On the serious side; I agree that there is such a thing as passive aggression. I do still believe the term is being abused. The ones that use it are mostly (as far as I have seen) aggressive people that label any satire, irony etc. that is thrown at them as passive aggression. As soon as the "opponent" is not calling them deepshit back but is going somewhat deeper, that is labelled passive aggression.

[Hobbes]

Ah, now I get it, being passive aggressive means failing at being funny!

 

It was more that you were pretending to agree while in fact planning to do something completely different

 

On the serious side; I agree that there is such a thing as passive aggression. I do still believe the term is being abused. The ones that use it are mostly (as far as I have seen) aggressive people that label any satire, irony etc. that is thrown at them as passive aggression. As soon as the "opponent" is not calling them deepshit back but is going somewhat deeper, that is labelled passive aggression.

 

I'd say that the person calling the others 'passive aggressive' is the one actually being passive aggressive on those situations. Instead of simply telling the other person that you don't agree or that you don't enjoy/understand that kind of humor they prefer to put bring down the other person by claiming that they are trying to manipulate them.

[Bomb Bloke]

It seems to basically boil down to trying to bring about a certain result by blocking another through simple non-action.

 

But there's a very limited scope as to how many behaviours can fit this definition. In an arguement, if you're producing counter-points (however far-fetched), you're no longer being passive, you're being active aggressive. For example, to be passive you must never in your response give a reason as to why you disagree - at least, not one that isn't self-evidently irrelevant. Trying to derail things with slurs against your opponent (eg calling them "passive aggressive" ) doesn't sound passive to me, as you're being provocative.

 

The concept doesn't work very well online, especially in a forum environment, where 1) you're probably not expected to act on the results of a given arguement you've lost anyway and 2) you can stall as long as you like, but your opponent has got as much time as you do.

 

Again, I've never heard of the term before, so it beats me as to how often it's misused and I'd probably have difficulty determining if a given instance were in error should see one. However, the English language is bullied mercilessly around the internet (... and everywhere else, really), so any term with the slightest complexity to its definition will likely just end up being used where ever it sounds cool.

[Sgt. Strike]

It seems to basically boil down to trying to bring about a certain result by blocking another through simple non-action.

 

But there's a very limited scope as to how many behaviours can fit this definition. In an arguement, if you're producing counter-points (however far-fetched), you're no longer being passive, you're being active aggressive. For example, to be passive you must never in your response give a reason as to why you disagree - at least, not one that isn't self-evidently irrelevant. Trying to derail things with slurs against your opponent (eg calling them "passive aggressive" ) doesn't sound passive to me, as you're being provocative.

 

The concept doesn't work very well online, especially in a forum environment, where 1) you're probably not expected to act on the results of a given arguement you've lost anyway and 2) you can stall as long as you like, but your opponent has got as much time as you do.

 

Again, I've never heard of the term before, so it beats me as to how often it's misused and I'd probably have difficulty determining if a given instance were in error should see one. However, the English language is bullied mercilessly around the internet (... and everywhere else, really), so any term with the slightest complexity to its definition will likely just end up being used where ever it sounds cool.

 

When you "attack" the person, not the subject of the debate, you are using ad hominum attacks. This means you are libelling, in print it's libel, in speaking it's slander, a person rather than debating the message. I personally think that passive aggressive is something that's combined to try to fit a certain group of people that doesn't fit anywhere else. It's really a contradiontin in terms, when you look at it. I know, I could say the old cliche's, but I won't. I'll just say this, I think passive aggressive is not what everyone thinks it is, but rather a blanket pair of words that's used to descibe actions, or non-actions, of people that just doesn't fit any single place, relatively speaking. I have more, but between lack of sleep, and other factors, I'm going to post this now, and continue later.