Nothing you're saying addresses what I have.

You asked if abuse is ever appropriate in argument. It is. Ideally, not so much in a place like this where the stakes are generally low and abuse is a largely disproportionate response, but as a matter of generality, there is no particular reason to bar abuse as a matter of argumentative principle.

I said really, and I of course meant right here and now, though had to talk about the Nazis for awhile for some reason, lol.

You know, there is a thing it is like to not be haunted by demons. To not be constantly going over what he said, and she said, and the possible satisfactory responses to it, and the returning of those bruised and bruising ideas or words from a different mouth. There's something it's like to be fresh, and hear things with new ears.

When people respond to you as if you are someone else, or some group they've categorized in their hearts and minds, and it appears to the non-mind reader as completely off base, or responding to more than what is available, it is because they've not healed from their previous battles. I can just imagine the expressions on their face as they type from the levels they emit.

There is a thing it is like to not be haunted like that...

So, abusive argumentation is out, but passive aggressive posturing is fine... Ok then...

What do you think passive aggression is? Completely serious question.

I'm not going to give you an English lesson. Demonstrate you can do at least some cognitive work yourself and if you really can't figure out why that could be applied to your post then get back to me.

What marks the aggression of the passive variety is that it is indirect. Like slashing tires, gossip, delaying, pretending to not hear you, backhanded compliments, doing jobs poorly on purpose. It is attempting to hurt you, but behind your back, or without having to take the responsibility for doing so.

The former is worse though, because overt aggression is difficult to gas light from. Hard to deny, whereas one can deny the intentions of causing harm in the case of its passivity, plausibly. Meaning that it is both more difficult to prove, as well as more difficult to disprove, just based in its nature.

I would just highlight that nearly all examples of it are unavailable to me in this context, and so at best, I could be hurling back-handed compliments, or subtle insults, and by nature of the accusation, they would be hidden, and difficult to detect, and thus also difficult to deny, as things that are not obviously insults, could be said to be so...

All I can say, is that passive aggression is difficult in this context, and that I've said absolutely nothing based in aggressive or resentful feelings.

Your post was assuming those participating in aggression were doing so out of their own paranoia and without cause.

Without saying so, you are trying to suggest they are aggressive without reason and so you are better/have a better position them. You are indirectly asserting your contributions must be more valuable than their aggressive rantings.

@All sight
Someone who strongly virtue signals about being kind and loving, but when others don't respond the way they wish, engages in subtle insult and other strategies to control the narrative and undermine their interlocutors while still attempting to maintain an appearance of being the most reasonable and considerate person in the exchange is engaging in typical passive aggressive behaviour. And it's going to be given short shrift here.

No, I in fact was not. My point has always been that the abuse does the opposite of what one would wish. It is an attempt to force them to comply, and is all but impotent when restricted entirely to conversation.

@All sight
Some of the strategies you specifically have used have been to falsely imply that others are ignorant of the topic at hand, and to impugn and mock the characters of those who don't agree with your discoursal strategy, suggesting they may have some personal psychological deficit that you are above.

I don't know how to respond to you. You're just making a string of accusations, none of which are obviously disprovable, based on the claimed covertness of them. All I can do is deny it.

All I can do is deny it. — All sight

Really?

...it is because they've not healed from their previous battles. I can just imagine the expressions on their face as they type from the levels they emit.

There is a thing it is like to not be haunted like that... — All sight

"They" are the people who disagree with you, right? You are not "haunted like that", right?

"Some of the strategies you specifically have used have been to falsely imply that others are ignorant of the topic at hand, and to impugn and mock the characters of those who don't agree with your discoursal strategy suggesting they may have some personal psychological deficit you are above."

Half of this is true, I do believe, as I have explicitly mentioned a number of times, and never denied, is that there is a real connection to the divine, that brings new outlooks, understanding, new life. It is the most important thing as far as I'm concerned, but I have not been cruel or disrespectful to anyone. That is baseless.

That's right, I confess and repent, and it is a real thing, and it is an important thing. Never denied that.

I have not been cruel or disrespectful to anyone — All sight

Where did I use those words? I said you were engaging in passive aggressive posturing. Which you were.

I asked you in what sense I was passive aggressive, and you wouldn't tell me, so I had to guess.

You were, the passive aggressivenes of the post is made on your reaction and treatment of others, not on whether your point was abuse doing the opposite of an intention.

Go back and look at you post. You basically said nothing about abuse having the opposite of an intended effect. It was a about how aggressive people couldn't be thinking correctly or reasonably.

After all that, we know the argument you are giving is false too. Properly placed agression is critical to understand what is right or wrong. There are countless examples of telling someone how they are utterly wrong is how they learn.

...you wouldn't tell me — All sight

I did tell you. Here:

Someone who strongly virtue signals about being kind and loving, but when others don't respond the way they wish, engages in subtle insult and other strategies to control the narrative and undermine their interlocutors while still attempting to maintain an appearance of being the most reasonable and considerate person in the exchange is engaging in typical passive aggressive behaviour. And it's going to be given short shrift here. — Baden

Lol, but none of that is remotely true. It's character assassination... of course I can't assent to that...

It's character assassination — All sight

You've just admitted to trying to assassinate the character of your interlocutors by making claims of their inferior personal psychologies. But anyway, I'm not going to go around in circles with a passive aggressive. Most posters here have seen this type of thing dozens of times.

I am sincerely not worried about this exchange making me look bad.

And I sincerely don't care because the jig is up. Your insincere exhortations towards being kind and loving have been revealed as empty posturing and an attempt at propping up your ego.

I never said that I was particularly kind and loving, wouldn't require confession and redemption if I were. Just that they are really important things to strive for. Not only for personal well being, but because they work better to operate on within human relationships at every level.

I never said that I was particularly kind and loving... — All sight

And clearly you're not. But it's probably because you've

not healed from previous battles — All sight

I can

just imagine the expression on [your] face as [you] type from the levels [you] emit. — All sight

So, it's not really your fault and we still love you. Despite it all.

Do you want me to leave, or trying to manufacture cause to force it? Why are you trying to paint me as such a villain?

You can drop the "poor me" act. They're your words. And none of this has anything to do with whether you stay here or not because no-one has said you've broken any rules.

It's not a poor me act, it's trying to understand where all of these baseless accusations are coming from. I don't think that replying to you further is worth while. I'm not actually worried that I'm going to be interpreted in such lights in general. As this rarely happens, as a matter of fact.

OK. I think we've both made our points anyway.

There's no real difference between insults and compliments, it's actually just all in my head? — All sight

Yes, it's all in our head. We CHOOSE how to experience anything anybody says in our direction. That's good news, because it means we need not be victims, unless we CHOOSE to be.

It appears you want to conduct a moral crusade. If true, ok, go for it, I don't object. But that's not going to solve the problem of emotional distress in social interactions. 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian moralizing has clearly failed to stop people from saying ugly things to each other.

This is a philosophy forum, so please examine the evidence. There's no evidence that you or anybody else is going to be able to manage what human beings say to each other.

If your goal is to judge people and tell them how they ought to live, ok, a moral crusade seems a good mechanism for that.

If your goal is to relieve the emotional distress that we sometimes feel when people say unpleasant things in our direction, you are on the wrong course. The solution lies not in the speaker's words, but in the mind of those who hear them.