Confused by the use of passive aggressiveness...

Post Reply New Topic

Today, I actually managed to pick up on the use of passive aggression towards me.

I was engaging in a discussion in class with an acquaintance about the book and film adaption of 50 shades of grey, they asked if I thought it was good and I explained that I didn't particularly like it because it glorifies domestic violence, I made several points as to why I saw it that way - well they asked why, and I gave them an answer...

I usually like to engage in civil discussions and hear another viewpoint, but also challenge that viewpoint in a civil manner, kind of an attempt to get the discussion rolling, I don't really think much of it and never really get upset when someone presents an argument against my viewpoint- well today I learnt the hard way that people don't like having their opinions challenged.

Half way through the conversation, the individual I was conversing with became rather agitated and defensive, generally I am oblivious to this, but with this incident I actually noticed a change in voice tone and it seemed that they didn't like that I had criticised the book/film that they really like.

They argued that the book and film is merely fictional, and therefore no one should have any issues with the actions of the characters - that's all good, I respect differing opinions.

But this is where I noticed the passive aggression: "if people don't like it, they shouldn't buy a ticket just to trash the movie, just so they can have an opinion on everything, they really should just shut up." ---> from what I can see, this statement was "indirectly" directed at me, this person then tried to cover it up with, "that's just my opinion.. *proceeds to shrug their shoulders*" .. Me being very shy, I was unable to reply, so I kept quiet.. This has happened to me on several occasions where people will often shut me down when I present an opinion they don't like.

I am very confused as to why some people cannot be upfront, and directly tell you what they think or explain why they don't agree, instead of resorting to twisting and hiding the true meaning behind their words. I cannot help but find this to be very dishonest, because for the most part I will not notice it, until I think about it in depth and realise that they were being passive aggressive. When I notice passive aggression later on, I actually find it more upsetting than being told directly.

Anyone else confused by passive aggression. .

The passive-aggressive cliche that I dislike most is someone using the old saw "that's only YOUR opinion" (of course it's mine since I expressed it, and how do you know that I am the only person in the world that holds that opinion?) when what they are usually communicating in a sly way is "I hate your point of view and I hate you for having it and expressing it, because it disagrees with mine".

It's used as a cowardly, indirect and egotistical kind of sneering to trivialise, isolate and discount the other person's point of view and their right to express it. But the "that's only your opinion-ers" never come out and say it directly. It's always hostile and they try to hide their hostility behind this tautologous cliche (but fail miserably).

If I acted like that person, I'd feel ashamed of myself.

It was passive aggression, at least it was a sneaky and rather nasty way of challenging your views. To this day I can be floored by that kind of thing, it still comes as a shock, but I've got better at dealing with it than I used to be. I never used to know what was hitting me until years had passed. These days I'm much better at spotting a dirty argument, and I've been known to defend myself quite well. My favourite defense against passive aggression is to calmly say something like "let's just get clear what you're saying there...." and then ask an embarrassing question such as "who do you mean by people exactly?" or "Can you elaborate, I don't think I quite caught your drift." Put the aggressor on the spot, make them do the work, and just highlight the holes in what they're saying, respectfully but robustly. On a good day, I might have managed to say something like "so what you're trying to tell us is that you think I shouldn't have criticised this movie because you like it?" They don't like being drawn out into the open like that, they want to snipe and escape, so your job is to remove their cloak and show their dagger.

I think it does take a lot of experience and confidence for an Aspie to respond in time. You have learned that "should(n't)" is bigot-speak, and "people" can be a passive-aggressive way of insinuating "you."

To my mind you probably won anyway, because people listening to the exchange would mainly know that those remarks were out of line, though I guess some idiots just award the prize to the one who has the last word.

Olympiadis wrote:

"It does not matter that the information we add could be relevant, accurate, or exceptionally insightful. We may assume that information like that is what is called for or wanted, but we are incorrect. NTs don't really want that at all. What is called for is the addition of supporting opinions and the omission of non-supporting opinions. What we do disrupts their emotional feeding of the ego and if it doesn't support this process, then it is often seen as a personal attack. We are seen as the rude aggressor, and so they get defensive. They have translated a malicious intent from our actions".


What I fail to read is their asking a question in order to get some kind of validation, like emotional support, a token of loyalty, or something of that nature".

Brilliant summary O, just brilliant! I didn't understand that for decades, because I knew that I was not acting from malice, my statements were motivated in a spirit of goodwill, (eg ideas for problem solving, where there had been no progress) so the hatred and nastiness in return just baffled and hurt me. I did not understand that meetings at work were primarily for declarations of loyalty to the nominal leader, and behaviour in demonstration of that, however limited the leader might be, and that frankness, honesty, innovative thinking, clarity on the work direction etc were the very last things anyone wanted to hear.

Anyone who is moved to passionately defend 50sog is an idiot and not to be taken seriously.

So much of communication is mutual validation. I've learned that facts and interpretations are rarely welcome, especially in groups. It's really just cheerleading.
I heard the term "friendly talk" used on the radio the other day. Apparently truth and commitment are unimportant in "friendly talk."