Sorry you feel that way: why passive aggression took over the world
economist.com
economist.com
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
I think it's actually a pretty good sign of progress that if a society is worried about micro-aggressions it means that they are not worried about larger problems, like genocide.
I'm not sure what you mean by sharing victimhood with fervor. What emotions do the perpetrators of micro-aggressions exhibit when they commit? I would ask that we question the position of perpetrators as much, if not more, than victims.
Often the real disagreements are the assumptions that are driving the superficial behaviors.
Assume the person you're replying to has, indeed, stopped to ask this question.
What do you think are the negative consequences of prioritizing the voices of those who have been suppressed, and de-emphasizing the voices of people who more easily get to be heard? And what do you think would be the consequences of not doing so?
See? Everyone can play this game. It's best to assume the other person has considered the consequences of doing/not doing this, and decided one is better than the other.
It's better to explain why you think that line of thinking is wrong (if that is what you think) instead of doubting the thought processes of the person you're debating with.
Yes, I have.
> How do you evaluate who is a victim?
I use my moral compass. YMMV
> Maybe the positive consequences are obvious, but what are the negative consequences of doing this?
I'm not sure, can you see some?
In other words "I may get it wrong, therefore I won't do anything" is unacceptable to me.
I trust that if I listen with an open heart and come from a peace of good intention then I will do the right thing.
It's certainly better than any alternative I could imagine for myself.
This false morality is what Nietzsche calls "slave morality", which is essentially a coping mechanism for the prideful. Whereas master morality prizes strength over weakness and expresses a straightforward and natural attitude of good and evil, slave morality begins with self-deception. It recasts that which it envies as evil in a game of sour grapes, so that the envious come out on top as the good.
This has always existed, sure, but it is also true that victimhood has been elevated and celebrated as virtuous quite notably today. It has become a manipulative instrument to dishonestly extract from and exploit others through false guilt. Nobody of sound mind celebrates victimhood. A victim can take comfort in his innocence when he is victimized, he may have a moral superiority because it is not what is done to us, but what we do that defiles us. He may be pleased that his suffering has advanced some good. But a victim of sound mind doesn't love his victimhood per se, though he may pity the perpetrator for his depravity and moral weakness.
Historically, the pendulum has swung back and forth between what Nietsche labeled master and slave morality. The Roman empire is a typical example of master culture: it's good to be rich and powerful, and it is right for the strong to dominate the weak. There might have been ressentiment among the Barbarians the Romans conquered, but the dominant culture certainly didn't sympathize with them.
Then in Europe we get the rise of Christianity, a typical example of slave morality which regards strength and power as evil (the New Testament is full of messages like the meek will inherit the earth, it's easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven, etc.)
Then Western civilization swings back to Master morality: the crusades as an early example, later manifest destiny, the white man's burden, the rise of fascism in Europe, etc. Then after WW2 fascism loses its luster and the pendulum swings back.
Western colonies which were previously considered mutually beneficial developments are now condemned as exploitative of the less advanced native cultures. People like Columbus who were once lionized for their discoveries and conquests are now condemned as villains.
You can view the American civil war as a midpoint of the pendulum's swing: while Negroes, who are poor and uneducated, are not (yet) considered morally superior to Whites, it is no longer morally acceptable to enslave them just because you can.
Today, the pendulum has swung fully towards slave morality. You should check your privilege, and shut up, so the oppressed may speak. Representation is important. The rich and powerful are almost by definition evil. Bill Gates and Elon Musk won't be remembered in the same way as Rockefeller or Ford. Racism is no longer racism, as it was in Martin Luther King's time, but now it's prejudice PLUS power (also everyone has racial bias, so by the very definition, the powerful are evil, while the powerless are innocent).
So while you can argue that the pendulum has swung back and forth on this topic through history, and it's hard to say if slave morality is currently at an “all-time high”, I think it's undeniably true that we are currently heavily biased towards celebrating the powerless over the rich and powerful.
Columbus wasn't generally lionised and celebrated during his lifetime, a lot of the mythology about him comes later
> As a colonial governor, Columbus was accused by some of his contemporaries of significant brutality and removed from the post.
But I think the weakness of this argument is apparent when you consider the modern examples. Gates and Elon have been lauded and praised and reviled and criticised at various levels at different times. There has always been a plurality of opinion about successful celebrities, modern and historic.
So I don't see that there is a master/slave swing. Rather perhaps the issue is that recently we've come into a situation where everyone's voice can be broadcast and opinion written. In the not so distant past the writing of the majority either didn't exist or wasn't available for consumption by society in general, and only the writing of influential people survived for us to read later. The grumbling of the masses was only apparent when it boiled over into action.
Right, but the point is he was lionized during a period where people found his conquests more important than the atrocities he committed, as is consistent with master morality of the time, even if it was not during Columbus' own time.
Similarly, Christianity only became really popular long after the death of Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean his viewpoints aren't an example of slave morality.
> There has always been a plurality of opinion about successful celebrities, modern and historic.
That's a fair point; obviously this obfuscates the situation a bit, but I don't think it disproves the general trend.
> In the not so distant past the writing of the majority either didn't exist or wasn't available for consumption by society in general, and only the writing of influential people survived for us to read later.
Also a fair point, but the observation doesn't rely on learning what the masses think (which I suspect is mostly what they're told to think). We see the same shift in attitude among the powerful elites.
For example, President Joe Biden picked a non-white woman as his vice president, and later vowed to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, to increase representation of underrepresented minorities. If any past president made such a declaration it would have been on record too.
The same is true about a lot of other topics. Homosexuals have existed forever, but large corporations didn't find it necessary in the past to dedicate a month per year to celebrating them, and there are plenty of historical records to prove that.
And so on, and so forth. I think it's hard to deny overall that it's a sign of the times we live in that we must praise and promote the marginalized and oppressed, and criticize and penalize the powerful.
I have to wonder why this is a bad thing?
To be a bit pedantic, the use of the words "praise and promote" is a bit... loaded, isn't it? This really seems like a simplification of civil rights movements. To be a bit more pedantic, "must" is a pretty strong word. Why "must" we praise the marginalized?
Surely by "celebrating" you mean with words and gesturing? Because in actual practice, the rich and powerful are as rich and powerful as ever, if not more so.
I don’t think the parent comment was trying to say that when the mentality pendulum swung after the US civil war era in the direction of the oppressed (as they claimed it did), suddenly the liberated former slaves became the ones in power of controlling politics/economy/etc.
That aside, yeah, you are correct, in the actual practice the rich and powerful are rich and powerful. The difference that the pendulum makes is about whether they are treated by the public as Fords and Rockefellers or as Musks and Thiels, which is just about the prevailing attitudes.
Re: the Musks and Thiels of this world, it probably doesn't help their public image that the modern world makes their bizarre opinions and outright arrogance more easily communicated. If Ford was arrogant or held freakish opinions, it was a little harder for the common man to find out. Now Musk can call a scuba diver a pedophile or spout conspiracy theories and this reaches tons of people almost immediately.
That makes quite a lot of things about the current time more difficult to comprehend using historical precedence. Because a lot of the fundamental things about living in our present time are exactly the same, yet unprecedented in significant ways. I guess the same could be said about almost any time period in history though.
Which is the opposite of the old american dream, focused on acting.
Historians will have a blast about this.
While not the only current in American history by any means, it's profoundly American, and you can draw a straight line of intellectual heritage from that core Puritan/Calivinst theology on through to Rauschenbach's Social Gospel theology and onto the modern secular Social Justice movement, spanning hundreds of years of American history.
The core tenet of postmodernism is that there is no objective truth, everything we see in the world is a societal/human construct. It's a pants-on-head extremist outloook that allows absolute insanity to parade as intelligence. It's reasonable to assume that there is at least some semblance of objective truth and argue about the degrees.
I find this to be a bizarre false dichotomy. Why not, for example, celebrate the virtuous instead? A society that valued kindness, bravery, temperance or whatever would seem a lot better than either of your options. I'm sure other people could think of plenty of other options as well.
Because it's hard to celebrate the intangibles, that is why virtue signaling gets the spotlight instead. But action and achievement are tangible and can be celebrated (if they're good for society).
This is not a "bizarre false dichotomy". This is a perfect example of dichotomy: do you celebrate actions or intent?
Depends. Which actions and which intent do you mean?
Is it a surprise that it's so popular today and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon of every cause imaginable.
What examples come to mind that make this a clear message?
It is visceral, effective, compelling, and utterly destructive to civil society. But that's the point: To construct an us-and-them narrative to excuse any evils done to "them" in the name of righteousness. Radicalization operates on the same pattern that gave us the Crusades, that gives us jihad, and that still drives people to full-throated defense of political purges.
Defense of the individual, divorced from group dynamics, was the clear, shining achievement of classical liberalism. Personal rights, privileges, and equal treatment under the law regardless of which group you belonged to, or what your status in society is. Our school systems are vigorously working to pull that apart.
The big question is how low the upcoming trough needs to be for us to get the next peak we expect.
This feels like a false dychotomy. There are various possibilities, not just two. I'm not in favor of celebrating the powerful and successful as many of them turned out to be sociopaths. I prefer to celebrate people of science, who through their talent and hard work advance our civilization, including victims, the powerful, and all the rest of us.
False dichotomy.
We could celebrate people who exhibit some tenet of higher principles, people we find inspiring. That's often not the same as victimhood or success.
I wonder if overuse of false dichotomies is a subset of the passive aggression surge.
I'm not advocating for the "celebration" of victims, but rather to minimize victimization in society. I also would not advocate for celebrating the "powerful" (as that is essentially useless as evaluating whether someone is worthy of adulation).
I would celebrate the people who have the most benefit for society: those who are kind, compassionate, and make the people around them even more so.
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.
Example please.
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.
Continental Europeans seems to show a greater directness.
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.
"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..."
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.
If you just sigh a "If that makes you happy" and then sulk to do whatever... that's not a positive message. Apathy, defeated, such things.
On the other hand, a sincere "If that makes you happy, let's go" is a very different thing. This is more in line with what we have at work at times - "I disagree with this plan, but it is the plan chosen by us all, so I will support it to the best of my abilities", or "I don't care either way, but you chose left, so left we go to the best of our abilities". If we can only get the right ice cream 2 hours away from here, alright? I have nothing better to do right now and if you give me a day, I have an icebox ready.
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.
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.
For some people, the latter is implicit in the former, but for some people it's not and then it becomes very shallow.
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
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
at workspace, it may mean saying "go away, I don't want to talk about your bs", but saying it directly is against rules.
"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?
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.
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.
> 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.
I thought this alternative definition was interesting. In a society that is increasingly interdependent, doesn't that make this fear stronger than ever?
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.
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!
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.
Where's the passive aggression? Later on, the article hints that before this played out, Aaron was annoyed at Jim. He intentionally spoiled the dinner (e.g disrespecting the effort Jim invested) by staying on the phone, but because he pretended to be unable to avoid the call it's passive — he can claim not to have spoiled it intentionally.
In contrast, it would be regular aggression if he'd thrown the pasta into the sink.
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.
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".
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.
Passieve aggressiveness is a damocles sword.
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.
“My Free Speech Means You Have To Shut Up”
https://popehat.substack.com/p/my-free-speech-means-you-have...
Passive aggressiveness is generally the tool of those in power to deflect any potential criticisms/issue taking, and the lower rung and more powerless the worker, the less their overt aggression matters, and is much more tolerated by their same level colleagues/environment.
Since bosses are disproportionately narcissistic, there’s going to be some correlation there.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
That's not how aggression works. That doesn't mean people won't rationalize, but it certainly doesn't change the cowardice.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression
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.
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"!).
"I was motivated to be aggressive out of laziness".
People will assume you're trying to make a joke, with good reason. Anyone seriously trying to claim they chose to be aggressive rather than silent out of laziness is involved in what's known as a post-hoc rationalization.
This stance only appears difficult to justify to you because in your head apparently words can have any meaning you want.
To draw an analogy. If I come across a child with down syndrome who vehemently argues that 1+1=3, that doesn't make it so (inb4 redefining binary operators in math). And at some point I can either care enough to try and educate this child or I can let them be with the understanding that they're going to have a harder time in life.
And so it is that I leave you.
Thankfully that wasn't my claim, so good luck with your strawman!
You've failed to make your point. Your down's syndrome paragraph... I cannot even begin to decide whether it's offensive, or stupid, or both.
You've failed to say anything besides doubling down on your initial unsupported assertion, even after I graciously provided you with an "out".
And so I too must bid you adieu.
And since I have no doubt this isn't going to be understood, passive aggressiveness can be employed by different categories of people.
While interesting, I think the essay vastly oversimplifies in its effort to make a point.
Sometimes I’m just lazy…
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.
:)