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.

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.

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.

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

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...

Nothing you're saying addresses what I have.

I'm not a fan of the formalization of morality, in the form of developmental pyschology, and Piaget. I agree that that is how competition, and games work, but I don't agree that morality is identical to that.

More than it being unpleasant, it is also counter productive.

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

I think that there has always been a problem with humans and arrogance, greed, pride, ego, and simply not being able to appreciate that things that are above them will not be immediately apprehended by them.

Wisdom is foolishness to the uninitiated. And having no legitimate stick to measure their relative competence, they overwhelmingly overestimate their own.

I think that it is indicative of an adversarial approach (I refrain from cursing in the abstract as well. It's unpleasant there as well.), where one is battling, and there are winners and losers. I don't think it has to be that way, we can both win!

I think that tone counts for a lot. Disagreements don't have to feel awful, it's a pleasure to disagree with a kind considerate person, as it is a pleasure to be in their presence in all situations. It is unpleasant to be around an abusive person, regardless of how much you agree with them in the abstract.

Doesn't this than apply to you as well? Why aren't you just managing your brain? Why aren't you following this advice?

So it is appropriate? I am at fault for caring, or being concerned with it?

What does it mean to be moral? To fight and destroy all of the evil, or to be the change you want to see in the world? To demonstrate what you would wish others would be like? What kind of hypocrisy was Jesus talking about?

More than that, I do believe in a real connection to the divine, that is severed through sin, and can be regained through confession, and change. To me, this is by far the highest good, and in itself sustaining of a person through all measure of trials. Nothing is comparable to the goodness of it, and nothing is comparable to the pain of its absence.

I think that you should ask yourself, "would I behave this way if I were trapped with them on an elevator?", and not anonymously on the internet. Hopefully we can muster something approximating the same level of restraint.

I'm saying that I would be more loving to those around me, and they would be more loving to everyone around them, and it would require a collective effort, just like stopping them with force does. Couldn't do it all by myself.

I don't have to hate someone to defend someone from them. I can still think that love could have cured them, even if it as a matter of fact did not, and act with a heavy heart. If your wife, mother, or someone else you loved dearly were about to kill your child with the knife, you'd be obliged to prevent this, but this says nothing about having to hate or abuse them in conversation.

Keeping in mind that I'm addressing like the worst possible scenario, and none in which we face, or I would certainly hope that everyone would indeed walk their talk.

Loving people from a distance doesn't do much. But being a loving respectful person that people care about the disapproval of, and approval of in their lives makes a big difference. I could not save everyone, but I would hope to introduce and proponent a climate and environment of love and understanding, and disapproval of abuse and violence which would spread. Just like you couldn't personally kill all the nazis, and would require a concerted team effort, I would as well.

It isn't obvious that we are morally obliged to stop evil, else we're all pretty damn evil for not being vigilantes. No. I think that love is the cure, so no, I don't find that delusional.

I answered that question, I said that I never suggested standing by and loving hitler from a distance, but within the context of dissuasion through conversation.

You're just not being serious, and attempting to accuse me of hypocrisy.

From my personal observations it works wonders, that's why I'm saying it. I was certainly a lot more hot blooded, and prone to agitation when I was younger, and life was much much harder.

Which questions?

Aren't you all just selfishly concerned with distancing, and personal assertions of righteousness?

I don't understand, in your mind are you there killing nazis and I'm loving Hitler from a distance? I'm speaking of engaging a person in conversation, the things we do here. How much physical force are you exerting, how many people are you making stop their wicked ways through force? I'm saying that if we were attempting to dissuade someone that having love for them, and treating them with kindness and respect does wonders. If you were to converse with him, and personally attempt to dissuade him, just calling him evil and delusional would be far less effective...

Because we are speaking precisely about the most extremes, as you reiterated multiple times...

Do I think that I'm evil and delusional? No, I don't suppose so. Do you think that stating that I am does anything beneficial? Do you not find that to be the definition of brow-beating?

You'd kill your child to save your own life? Do you have any children?

Loving him would not only fail, and get you harmed, but make him even eviler? I don't agree, I think that love is the answer. You can think that abuse and force is, if they deserve it enough... I don't.

Love is the answer. We are far from entirely rational beings, but love breeds love, and hatred, hatred. With policies about killing too extreme of divergents, you'd better hope that you always remain in power. Being hateful and inflammatory, even to the worse of your enemies just shuts people down, makes them stop listening.

Like raising your child, you do need to disapprove of some things that they do, but you have to have such a relationship where they care about your approval in the first place. When faith and love are lost, is when force is required. Hatred is not stopped by hatred.

I sincerely believe that such extreme action makes things worse, creates a bigger problem, widens gulfs. I would rather reduce hatred and violence in the world, not increase it...

It depends on the context. Take an extreme: say you're arguing with one of the Nazis who marched at Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us", it would absolutely not be inappropriate to say to them "How could you possibly say that!" or "That's a wicked viewpoint!". — Baden

It is inappropriate if you wish to dissuade them. If we couldn't just physically make them stop, what does distancing yourself and disapproving do, other than as Akanthinos suggested, score points with already in agreement listeners, to huddle closer to them, by creating a greater distance from detractors. It furthers conflict, widens disagreement rather than resolves anything. It's using others as a tool to assert one's goodness, affiliations, and allegiances...

Being abusive is hardly a winning strategy. One is rarely one more slur away from convincing them. "Fun" as it may be...

Okay, I'll just assume that it isn't about me, and not respond to remarks addressed at how wrong they are. Because, such comments, as a matter of fact, happen to not be addressing me.

Perhaps I'm being defensive, but I don't understand what has promoted all of these attacks on conservatism... the people I'm speaking of are not here to hear it... so I don't know how to react other than think that they're speaking to me, and trying to dissuade me.

I just said that this was something I figured based on my own personal encounters. I have zero evidence, could be wrong.

I didn't start a discussion on civil rights equality or prosperity, but how conservative teens seem to be, and my suggestion about moderation was indicative of my feeling that it needs to be countered. Don't worry, I've been accused of white knighting enough times to count for something. The memes, and what I see being made fun of (which I've also said has upset me, and made me argumentative, and said that I wasn't laughing at any of it in any case) is mostly any social justice stuff, and do you figure that teens are watching the daily show, and kimmel or something? No... it's all memes and internet stuff from what I see.

None of this is the subject though... instead things feel like an inquisition, and a demand for auto de fe to prove allegiances...

How wrong people are for thinking what isn't the subject. What they may think, regardless of wrong or right is. The implication is not that I am suggesting this for some wish fulfilling reason or some such, and endorse it? I do endorse moderation, but not even on account of personal centrality but because it would be counter productive in any case, I believe.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain that I'm mistaken, but not because an article is misleading, or I secretly want it to be true...

Keep in mind, again, that I am not attempting to suggest that the article is correct. I did not read something, and believe it, I believed to have noticed something based on my first person interactions, and suggested this. I then just made a google search to demonstrate that I didn't seem to be the only one that noticed something.

I feel like some implicit accusations are being made towards imagined positioned I may hold, and ulterior motives for suggesting what I have, and the level of disgust and indignation is based in solely paranoia, I assure you.

As for disagreement that this is a genuine thing that is happening, or I am mistaken, that is perfectly fine, totally could be, but the implicit insinuations of political motivations for suggesting so are not worry of response.

I am attempting to speak to a phenomenon I believe that I am witnessing, and don't mean to suggest which is actually funny, justified, or whatever.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/#5f6f65697878

There is an article about it, there are actually lots, now that I look.

I do agree. I think that one important aspect to wanting to persuade others to our positions is that it increases our own certainty of it, so that when most are on your side, you're all the more certain of it. This is precisely reflected in the way you describe, I think.

My apologies, I attempted it. Just that there is an aspect of the human condition they are addressing which requires that one is in some sense already familiar with what is being talked about for it to make any sense at all.

"1) The experience of love works, a fact which can be confirmed by anyone of any belief in their own personal experience without reference to any outside authority."

I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate, but I think that you're right, both here most prominently, but also in the notion that Christianity speaks directly to the reality of the human condition, and it is through this basis that the divisions I mentioned arise.

The natural man, being unregenerate, and not spiritually changed finds no basis in any of it, so even if they do believe it, they'll not know what is significant, and what isn't. Whereas those that have in fact experienced a redemption, death and rebirth will. That understand what it means to receive a new spirit, will on that basis understand the foundation of the doctrine, and precisely what it is speaking to.

I don't think that Christianity has ever been based on authority, persuasion, or blind belief. Paul says that there are three kinds of people, the natural man, the carnel man, and the spiritual man. All with different aptitudes and attitudes towards revealed truth. He says that there are truths received through the eyes, truths received through the ears, truths received through our capacity to reason, and truths received through the spirit. So that, he posits a faculty, and mechanism which is a prerequisite to comprehension, suggesting that it is fully possible to understand, and not take their word for it.

I also find it interesting that the natural man is "unregenerate, or unchanged spiritually", and so unsaved, and unable to comprehend anything spiritual, whereas the "carnal man" the sensuous man, is in the same category as the "spiritual man", saved, but being a "babe in christ" they are fed all on milk, and no meat, as they are too weak to handle the meat.

Second writing of this post, first one got lost somehow, even after I'd edited it once, and I feel was superior to this one...