Aggression and conflict

TheGreasyPole · 2018-03-13T18:42:43+00:00

It seems to me that negative opinions of a group (such as women) are associated with conflict with that group

Actually, I think thats quite a female way of viewing the world. They view negativity directed at them as aggression.

Even where that negativity is "earned" or "true" and so may not be an example of "aggression" so much as "describing the world the way it really is".

Men tend to really only view actual aggression directed at them as aggression. Status signalling of physical aggression (like a man moving in close to you, drawing him to his full height and looking you directly in the eye as he invades your personal space) as well as actual physical aggression (shouting at you, or punching you).

I think this comes from the fact that the male "default" is towards more physical type confrontation to deal with a "threat"... wheras the female "default" is towards what, for want of a better word, can be called "character assasination" in response to a threat.

Women "deal with" other people by assassinating them with negative comments about them. They don't do that physical confrontation signalling. They retreat... then talk to other people... and spread negative information about you via that indirect method in order to drag you down socially. Thats the default female way of dealing with the kind of threat a man would physically confront.

Of course, if thats how you act.... Someone saying something negative about you is going to be counted as an "act of aggression" against you. They're, clearly, character assassinating you and must be counted as an enemy to confront by character assassination in return!

In so far as this is spreading through society, this is largely because women's view of what constitutes aggression is taking over.

This is very problematic.... because sometimes you have to stay stuff that is true, because it is true, even though someone would construe that as negative.

This makes "speaking the truth" simply because you need truthful information to be out there an act of aggression!

Something females can "legitimately" stifle, or subvert, or silence to "stop aggression". By doing so unwittingly silencing real truth and truth telling and harming societies ability to see reality clearly.

This is happening A LOT in society lately. People treating honest truth telling.... "Women can be mean" (?).... as an aggression ("this person wants to attack women!") and then silencing them on this basis "What are you, a woman hater ? Begone foul demon!".

So, my alternative narrative here is that women's view of "aggression" as a negative character assassination is coming to dominate. They're beginning to silence truth telling, if that truth can be perceived as negativity towards any group, and are trying to (seemingly) allow only positive truths to be told. This is especially true when the negative truth telling is directed at a group they identify as or with.

So "Women have better social skills than men" is fine, even though it's "sexist", because it's not negative. So not counted as an "aggression", a character assassination.

But "Women have worse logical reasoning skills than men" is perceived as a negative, so an aggression, and so makes you a "sexist" they need to "character assassinate back" in the conflict you just "created" as far as they can see by clearly "character assassinating them" in the social group

Even though that conclusion is as well supported by the science as the caring, positive, conclusion is.... and even though to a large extent the first statement very heavily implies the second as socially orientated people are less likely to be logically orientated people and vice-versa.

_Ulan_ · 2018-03-14T17:05:24+00:00

To me the controversy has been about serving your own interest vs serving the other one's interest. These are the two main options of any conflict - luckily we can sometimes serve both interests. (with a jumping rope)

The second part of the controversy comes from the fact that any relation include giving some power to the other party - that is the base of trust. What the partner does with that power is an eternal debate between BP and RP.

stats135 · 2018-03-13T17:17:06+00:00

The underlying principal behind "Game" is that women put "feelz before realz.". What matters is how you make a women feel, you can't logic attraction. So if women make decisions based on her feelings, then it seems to be a logical conclusion that the way to make a women change her decision is to change her feelings.

The conflict is that many people see changing people's feelings as "manipulation." There seems to be no winning. If you try to get laid by doing nice things to please her and make her feel good, your a "NiceGuy". If you try to get laid by doing things that make her feel bad then you are psychologically abusing her.

AutoModerator · 2018-03-13T16:15:04+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

wtknight · 2018-03-13T17:26:24+00:00

To what extent is it essentially about aggression and conflict?

It's about one side trying to get advantage over the other in what has become a free sexual market where the demand (and perhaps the supply) from the male side is greater. If women wanted sex as much as men do and with as many men as men want sex with women, then there would be much less of a need for men to develop something like PUA.

yasee · 2018-03-13T20:37:38+00:00

implying that even small aggressions are very harmful

I think the idea behind microaggressions is that these low level annoyances, though relatively innocuous when taken individually, can build up over time and have a cumulative effect on a person's self-esteem. Like if one person mistakes you for a nurse, NBD. But it happens every day for like a year, or if it's part of a larger pattern of getting treated badly, then you'll start feeling pretty shitty about it

ChasingSunShine22 · 2018-03-13T23:12:29+00:00

Again, whether that’s a fair characterization or not, that is what BP is bothered by. The site says that “things like being confident [or] becoming physically fit” are not problematic, but they are just “platitudes that are … used by TRPers to mask the negative aspect of their belief system.”

This is the core controversy. Associating all women with a bunch of negative characteristics and citing examples of very specific situations that fit their narrative while dismissing others.

Anti bullying, anti microaggression, PUA and TRP are different things but that attract similar crowds hence why we see all four camps on this subreddit.

If you are a PUA then you are statistically more likely to get into TRP. If you are an anti bullying activist then you are more likely to be a believer in the existence of microaggression and want to stop that too.

newName543456 · 2018-03-13T23:54:54+00:00

Controversy is that some people don't like to see others improve, like crabs in the bucket. Whatever you do, there will be naysayers. If they don't have anything constructive to say, ignore them.

Lacy_Drays · 2018-03-14T09:10:48+00:00

Perhaps people today get confused a lot.

Did a person intend to belittle you in a malicious way or did, whatever he or she said, just make you self-conscious?

Some people don't mind the self-conscious part, although it feels very uncomfortable being in a situation where someone raises up a mirror for you to watch. And other people get slighted by it - how dare you! You think you're better than me! These people have very fragile egoes and they seem to be perceiving the world as hostile towards them. They have mental issues.

Now - not all negative words or suggestions are passive sounds that recall your self-consciousness. Here's the amazing thing that happens - people, who might be slighted beforehand, or might have become self-conscious about something that you said or did - or maybe your mere presence is intimidating to them in that way - it slights them and makes them hostile - and they will deliberately try to take you down - they will try to insult you or push your buttons.

Now, if you're entierly clueless about the possibility that the other person was slighted by you, and you now are in the barrage of insults, you may start having self-doubt - is it true, what he or she is saying to me?

At this stage when I hear something that is untrue - at least to my knowledge - I get upset or agitated. The same way someone would when another person would come up to them and just punch them for no apparent reason.

I have, of course, also gotten slighted by honest criticism - but I know very well that the feeling of uncomfortable self-consciousness is VERY different from the feeling of unresonable backlashes and insults.

Some people - like kids or autists or otherwise socially-awkward people very often tactlessly make comments about things that strike a chord. I bet you know the feeling. And to me that feeling is no different when getting feedback to my work or being called out on inappropriate behavior. It's uncomfortable, but I no longer confuse that sensation with pain.

The hardest part, I guess - how can you know whether you're slighted or genuinely attacked by someone who is slighted - and what the appropriate response would be. Takes a lot of awareness about your situation, moods and feelings - and of course awareness of what your self image is all about.

The most agitating are people who make desperate verbal attacks and when I retaliate by marking it that they are speaking out of their arse now (in a polite manner), they get even more slighted and next accuse me of incapable of criticism, over-sensitivity etc. For many years I took all those verbal attacks very seriously and considered everything people violently said to me (and considering it all didn't make me a better person - it made me confused and I became ill, eventually)

I used to be kinda socially-awkward and had the uncanny ability to say things that made people around me feel uncomfortable. And a lot of those people got slighted by it and started insulting me for it - and I wasn't hard to insult, and I was also very volatile emotionally back then, and it often ended up with me crying about some bs.

I stopped doing it once I faced another person who did just the same thing that I had been doing (commenting and announcing things that could have been left alone) - and I felt the effects on my own skin ;)

That's where the circle starts, really - someone gets slighted, and from there on it's just backslashes and more slight.

A lot of those microaggression problems would just dissapear if people went trough some CBT and started working on becoming more competent, instead of worrying about their esteem and confidence imo.

Ascimator · 2018-03-14T12:58:21+00:00

There appears to be a feel-good notion in the West that bullies are "weak" and they only bully because they're weak.

That's bullshit. Most bullies (not the kind that sends you hate mail in HotS after they lose) are strong socially. That's what validates their actions in the first place.

Title	Aggression and conflict
Author	AlanHalworth
Upvotes	5
Comments	36
Date	March 13, 2018 4:15 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/845de1/aggression_and_conflict/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/aggression-and-conflict.263259 https://theredarchive.com/post/263259

Comments