Arguments seem to engender a lot of different responses. Had a bit of one with the SO (significant other) a couple of days ago which got me reflecting on this. We disagreed about something. Then he got angry that I wouldn’t get angry. I wasn’t playing some passive-aggressive game or the like. It was an issue that just wasn’t worth the energy of a lot of drama. Something that was sure to pass.
There’s a lot of stuff like that around. One can get all the smoke and lava spewing, enjoy doing so, I admit sometimes I do, but that too has a larger perspective.
On the flip side there is also the reticent approach. Which sometimes is passive-aggressive. But that is something else.
The reticence or even nihilistic version of it…it’s all an illusion anyways…or some such thought isn’t often helpful either. It is a type of silent majority thing that sluffs off the responsibility for one’s life and decisions therein onto…well anyone or anything else. To Not-Choose is also a choice. It is an ethics of fear.
“Suppose I am wrong? Suppose my choice leads to something bad? Suppose someone disagrees with me? Suppose it leads to an argument? Suppose, suppose, suppose…”
The balance is difficult. Some things just require engagement. Sometimes one just has to man (ahem) up…
Sometimes you just have to…