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.
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.