Passive Aggressive comments

[psalms 91]

Pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to everything like they are the devil's advocate. It is annoying and turns a thoughtful, meaningful discussion into a feeling that one must constantly defend themselves. Not that defending themselves achieves anything with these people.

On a forum, where threads are started to share, and get insights, expressions of negativity to all postings in non productive and not helpful to learning process, insights, or reconsideration of position with alternative presentations because the passive resistance doesn't give any alternatives. The indirect expression of hostility, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to bring anything to the threads except negativity is a big dose of wasted breath. They show purposeful inefficiency for the sake it seems to kill the life and spirit of God moving upon His people. I call it obstructionist resistance.

YES! This describes what I feel at times and yes I get very annoyed and wonder if I should post at all sometimes

 

[MoreCoffee]

I still haven't got a clue how somebody disagreeing makes them "passive" and at the same time "aggressive"; it might make them disagreeable or a pain but not both passive & aggressive at the same time. The term "passive/aggressive' sounds like something of an oxymoron that's been recruited to label almost anything that a chap might not like.

 

[visionary]

I still haven't got a clue how somebody disagreeing makes them "passive" and at the same time "aggressive"; it might make them disagreeable or a pain but not both passive & aggressive at the same time. The term "passive/aggressive' sounds like something of an oxymoron that's been recruited to label almost anything that a chap might not like.

"Passive" probably comes from the cloak and dagger pattern to their presentations. The wall of passive excuses doesn't stop their intent.

 

[Brighten04]

Pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to everything like they are the devil's advocate. It is annoying and turns a thoughtful, meaningful discussion into a feeling that one must constantly defend themselves. Not that defending themselves achieves anything with these people.

On a forum, where threads are started to share, and get insights, expressions of negativity to all postings in non productive and not helpful to learning process, insights, or reconsideration of position with alternative presentations because the passive resistance doesn't give any alternatives. The indirect expression of hostility, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to bring anything to the threads except negativity is a big dose of wasted breath. They show purposeful inefficiency for the sake it seems to kill the life and spirit of God moving upon His people. I call it obstructionist resistance.

Wow! This is exactly how I feel. I am a direct person.. I am not very skillful with innuendo and talking around the corner to people. I say what I mean, and mean what I say.

Oh the games people play now
Every night and every day now
Never meaning what they say now
Never saying what they mean.

People walking up to ya
Saying glory hallelujah
Turn your back they'll sock it to ya
In the name of the Lord

 

[Hammster]

I still haven't got a clue how somebody disagreeing makes them "passive" and at the same time "aggressive"; it might make them disagreeable or a pain but not both passive & aggressive at the same time. The term "passive/aggressive' sounds like something of an oxymoron that's been recruited to label almost anything that a chap might not like.

Mostly, they are comments made about someone without being directly said to them.

Something like, "Well, you should be commended for trying to get your point across. It's isn't your fault that some folks aren't smart/spiritual enough to get it."

It's not a direct insult to the one who "doesn't get it". But it lets them know why.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Mostly, they are comments made about someone without being directly said to them.

Something like, "Well, you should be commended for trying to get your point across. It's isn't your fault that some folks aren't smart/spiritual enough to get it."

It's not a direct insult to the one who "doesn't get it". But it lets them know why.

But that IS a direct insult and everybody knows it - it is not passive.

 

[Hammster]

But that IS a direct insult and everybody knows it - it is not passive.

It isn't direct because it not saying "MC is too stupid to understand." It's saying SOME people are too stupid, while everyone knows who is really being referred to.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It isn't direct because it not saying "MC is too stupid to understand." It's saying SOME people are too stupid, while everyone knows who is really being referred to.

It doesn't need to name names to be direct. Typing "Some folks are real jerks aren't they" after discussing a forum member with whom one has a disagreement is a direct attack and it is not passive it is just a little more cowardly than saying their nickname directly. I still think "passive/aggressive" is psycho-babble.

 

[Hammster]

It doesn't need to name names to be direct. Typing "Some folks are real jerks aren't they" after discussing a forum member with whom one has a disagreement is a direct attack and it is not passive it is just a little more cowardly than saying their nickname directly. I still think "passive/aggressive" is psycho-babble.

Could be. I'm not arguing for or against the term. I just wanted to give an illustration as what is meant.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

An example could be - if i'm not interested in debating a moron anymore, I could just as well respond by -
op2:
Which is sure to get their hackles all up, but avoids me calling them a moron directly. I'm just sittin' here eating popcorn, while the moron blathers on.

 

[MoreCoffee]

An example could be - if i'm not interested in debating a moron anymore, I could just as well respond by -
op2:
Which is sure to get their hackles all up, but avoids me calling them a moron directly. I'm just sittin' here eating popcorn, while the moron blathers on.

Yes it is tempting to make an emoji substitute for name calling ... mind you, not everybody attaches the same meanings to each emoji - I for example use op2: to indicate that I am sitting back and not participating for the time being which does not imply that I think my interlocutor is a moron ... mind you, it may be infuriating for them ... it is hard to tell.

 

[MarkFL]

As a Camaro owner, I might go to a Firebird site and post:

What do you get if you give a Camaro a big shot of estrogen? A Firebird! op2:

I use it to imply I have dropped a bomb that might result in some spirited banter.

 

[tango]

As a Camaro owner,

sigh



(Have I got the hang of this passive aggressive thing yet?)

 

[MarkFL]

sigh



(Have I got the hang of this passive aggressive thing yet?)

LOL! I would say you have mastered it beautifully!

 

[Hammster]

It would great if someone could say something slightly meaningful to the discussion.

 

[MarkFL]

It would great if someone could say something slightly meaningful to the discussion.

You're getting the hang of it too! :clap2:

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

It would great if someone could say something slightly meaningful to the discussion.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! :lol:

 

[MoreCoffee]

op2:
op2:op2:
op2:op2:op2:
op2:op2:
op2:

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

.

 

[Lamb]

Umm...when I started this thread I wasn't looking for more examples :slap: