Confused by the use of passive aggressiveness...

Post Reply New Topic

Yes that's exactly what I mean. It's similar to someone saying "Don't take this the wrong way but..." or "I don't mean to insult you but..." and then what follows is insulting and it's only natural to take it that way.

"This is only MY opinion but..." is usually very passive aggressive. The person is trying to make it sound like they are being polite, and that they are fine with it if you just disregard what they say, but what they really mean is that they think their opinion is important and you should listen to it or else. And if you say this to genuinely be polite, it's likely to be misinterpreted the other way around.



Well, actually I can, but that's not what I was doing. 50 Shades of Grey is NOT about BDSM. It's a long way off from that. It's about a guy who stalks, manipulates, and coerces a very naïve young woman into giving her consent to something she knows very little about. And he isolates her by getting her to sign a non-disclosure agreement so she can't talk to anyone about what is happening.

Real BDSM is not like that. It's roleplaying, it's done with a lot of care and consideration, and it's not the entire basis of a relationship. In 50 Shades, they are not equal partners in the arrangement, and they have no real relationship outside of it. He totally objectifies her and uses her. The most horrifying thing is that when he controls her and punishes her and takes his anger out on her, he's doing it FOR REAL. It's not roleplaying and it's pretend, because those are his actual intentions. That's abuse. That's not what BDSM is about, but she doesn't have any idea of that. And that's why he targets her, because she is naïve and he can manipulate her very easily.

If I made inferences to the person's character, it was from the OP's description, and not the mere fact that the person obviously liked this movie. I can't help but see an obvious parallel between the person the OP was talking about, who refuses to hear or accept any opinion but their own, and a character like Mr. Grey who wants a REAL submissive without much opinion of her own. It makes perfect to me that such a person would like this movie.

I wouldn't draw the same inferences about a person who likes BDSM pornography (would still draw some, yes, but different ones). I haven't read the book, so I don't know how explicit it is, but the movie is certainly not pornography. It's very tame by those standards. But neither the book or the movie is about BDSM.

I understand this perfectly, but somehow I still can't stop myself from being honest. lol

I understand it too, but even if I could have curbed my honesty that much, I'm glad if my autism made it difficult for the pecking order brigade while I was working. Every time somebody bursts their bubble, it's a little harder for them to keep doing it. I'm sure they don't need to do it, at least I'm sure it's worth trying to run a workplace without it.

I have not read the book or seen the movie but from what I have been hearing about it, it sounds like an inaccurate protrayal of BDSM. That is not how it really is. It's supposed to be done with consent from both parties, not forced on someone. But I also believe this could have been a fantasy and that is how fantasies are, it's all about being forced and some people like that. They love to be forced so the author wrote about it and having it be a fantasy.

The reaction is not that uncommon. For example, all you have to do is see how fans of the Star Wars prequels react to all those people who say that the prequels were crap. In any case, I don't think that there's any reason to feel bad about it.

Right. The meeting is a builder/reinforcer of the structural hierarchy.
Anything else, like those things you listed would only serve to solve too many real and imagined problems, and thus negate the need for much of middle management.
The larger system at work is geared towards creating more of those management jobs by way of creating more problems, mostly new imagined ones.
It has been a systematic evolution.

The "system" most often uses binary splits.
For example, if you aren't being submissive, then you are being aggressive, and that threatens leaders.

I was always confused about what being “Passive Aggressive” means and why it is bad.

An article <link> I read states: “It is where you are angry with someone but do not or cannot tell them. Instead of communicating honestly when you feel upset, annoyed, irritated or disappointed you may instead bottle the feelings up, shut off verbally, give angry looks, make obvious changes in behaviour, be obstructive, sulky or put up a stone wall.”

So -- What’s wrong with being angry with someone and not telling them? Seriously, what good does it do to tell someone you are angry with them? Won't that just alienate them. And, more importantly, that angry feeling will eventually go away. So why bother?

That's so interesting, and I think your analysis is spot on.

You are focusing on the wrong part of the description. The key part is: " give angry looks, make obvious changes in behaviour, be obstructive, sulky or put up a stone wall.”"

The key thing is that the person can't or won't control the anger. They don't want to be direct about it, but they none the less communicate aggression through sarcasm, tone of voice, etc.

It's the person who says, "Right." when they mean "BS." Or claps too slowly. or says "That's great" with a sneer. The goal is to communicate aggression, but to do so below the level that makes a response in kind socially acceptable.

Don't think I could have said it better myself. This is perfect.

Thanks. I think I get it. The first time I heard the term, I thought it described me. Now, I guess I am more "passive avoidant" - if there is such a thing. If I get mad, I simply hold it inside and avoid the person I am mad at. In other words, still like a child. LOL.

It sounds like you might have unintentionally put that purpose on the offensive. If you say the movie promotes domestic violence and this other person enjoyed the movie, the hidden fear that the person might have is that they are a bad person for liking the movie. But then they think "no, that's bs. I'm a good person F*** you." And then they temper this response by saying what they actually said in a vague, defensive way, trying not to be too offensive, but at the same time, claiming their ground that they are fine.

Just my interpretration. I don't call this passive aggression (you could use that word to describe 100% of the population if you apply it to liberally).

It's funny. Sometimes you can really get under a person's skin just by stating your opinion on something because it forces them to examine themselves and question their own thoughts and behaviors.

I committed a similar "sin" recently and I got "attacked" for it. The thing is I really did upset the person. But it wasn't my intention. It's not an aspie thing or an nt thing. It's just something that people do.

That is passive aggression, and most people do use it at times. A smaller number of people use it almost all the time and then it becomes pathological.


While it's true that this is something everyone does, I think it is an aspie thing because NTs typically send and receive subtle signals that allow them to moderate their interactions so that they can avoid conflict unless they choose to create it. I think that autistic people have difficulty in perceiving these signals (by definition) and thus fail to engage in the expected moderation of their interaction until the other person perceives them as being very aggressive--because such behavior in an NT person would signal aggression.

In this way, a kind of interaction that is typical for NTs becomes a focus of problematic interactions and conflict for autistic people. We think, "but I was just expressing my opinion" and they think "you were being nasty." Within their frame of reference, they are correct, but the whole thing is mystifying to the autistic person, except perhaps in detailed analysis in hindsight.

To me "it's my opinion" means they don't care if they are wrong or not and they don't wish to discuss it or debate it. I think "That;s your opinion" is another way of saying you're wrong. Saying that is someone's opinion is another way of saying who cares what they think.

Adamantium – Just curious, how is this any different from a person thinking one thing ("Wow, your haircut looks awful") and saying something entirely different ("Wow, your haircut looks really cute"), just to be socially "correct"? Or, what if the person rolled their eyes, while saying, "Wow, your haircut looks really cute" – would that be considered “passive aggressive”? Or must anger/rage exist for it to be “passive aggressive”?

As a note, I remember many, many years back (when I first entered the work force), I attended a meeting. After the meeting, someone mentioned that certain people were being "passive aggressive". To this day, I still have no clue what those people did to be labeled as such.

I am not that confident about the answer to this, but my understanding is that the key difference between "white lies" of the "no, it doesn't make you look fat" variety and passive aggression is the there is no aggression in the white lie.

The rolling eyes thing is done with the intention of negating the compliment. The communication becomes hostile: your haircut is ugly, you look bad. The truth of this is not important. The social convention is that you never say this to a friend, so saying it is a declaration of hostility. But it's very low grade. That's the passive part.

It's a tricky thing because if the aggression is too subtle, then the target is not hurt by it, but if the aggression is too strong, the target can call the aggressor out on their behavior and may counter attack more overtly without breaking any social rules.

The more subtle kind of passive aggression could include things like always being late, which might have other causes, so it gets murky quickly. I understand this theoretically more than in real life.



I have so many memories of this kind of thing. My group had a meeting and I overheard a discussion afterwards about what happened. I missed almost everything they were talking about and never really understood how all these things they were discussing happened. Mostly I have been oblivious to this kind of thing and try to just focus on the work.