Passive/Aggressive « lategaming

2Oct/060

Passive/Aggressive

I don't think so. Sure, I use sarcasm a lot, often in a humourous and self-deprecating way, but am I passive/aggressive?

Passive/Aggressive is defined as being reluctant compliance with passive disruption. Such as if you're forced to cook the dinner, you burn it so that no-one will ask you again.

How did this term become one used to win an argument? If you make a point that seems to be a winning point, you then get accused of being passive/aggressive as that's meant to shoot your arguments down?

To be honest, I think that todays forums are filled with whining pussies. That's not passive/aggressive, it's just aggressive! Being passive/aggressive is about avoiding direct conflict, inserting ambiguity, general kvetching. If anything, in the thread above, I'm responding to general passive/aggressive behaviour. Especially when it winds back to "Well, sure, Aberrant and Hero are okay, but you really should use M&M". Bloody M&M cheer-fucking-leaders. I believe I'm not being passive/aggressive when I'm expressing my hostility openly. Wankers.

It's so easy to construct a straw man argument or label someone's contributions as passive/aggressive these days and win by default. I bloody hate it. I'm not wanting things to get back to the way they are on usenet, but JESUS...are things that bad that any time you actually have anything worth arguing about, people start to whine?

I've said before elsewhere that I'm brusque. Over here in Ireland I've been in some killer debate, fantastic arguments that REALLY made you think, really fired the blood. And yes, we've sworn at each other, laughed in the others face and at the end of the day, we have no problem getting up to buy the next round.

Debate is good. Conflict is good. Arguments are good.

But RPGnet seems dedicated to the idea that conflict and debate are bad. We shoud all just be generally agreeable wishy-washy types. Is that not the absolute embodiment of passive/aggressive.