Or rather, how can written argument, be "aggressive"?
I recently got accused of "arguing aggressively". (Amongst other things!). And, despite a continued conversation, considerable thought, and some (actually quite extensive), research, I really don't know what to think about this.
In the real-world I have variously be characterised as 'direct', 'forthright', 'to the point', 'all business', 'driven' ,'persistent', 'goal-oriented' (hate that one!), and 'blunt'. But never "aggressive".
The last physical fight I had--barring (successfully) fending off an attempted 'smash, snatch and run' of my laptop on the London underground, and losing a front tooth in the process that cost me four grand to replace with an implant--was when Barry Stevens took umbrage over some joke I made about his favourite teacher. We were 11 or 12.
So, I looked up "aggressive". And there are essentially two definitions:
- "aggressiveness - having or showing determination and energetic pursuit of your ends; the quality of being bold and enterprising".
- "characteristic of an enemy or one eager to fight"; "a belligerent tone"
And therein lies my quandary:
- Which of those deceptively similar, but disparately perceived, definitions am I being accused of?
- And how do my accusers discern the difference?
Another thought crosses my mind: How much of the perception of what I say, is influenced less by what I actually say, and more by whom I say it to?
Example: Sir! Your logic is flawed. currently stands with a rep of 6. Now, by the dint of logic that (typically) I do not understand, the +- rep count for that post is suppressed, so I cannot tell you what it is. I seem to recall that it received at least one down vote--perhaps from the PP (previous poster), perhaps not--but for the full skinny, we would need to invoke the caprice of the Gods. But as they are those decided that we mere mortals should not be savvy to such knowledge; don't hold your breath.
The point is, that despite the somewhat flowery language, that post is at least as 'inflammatory' as any of my recent posts for which I have been castigated. But that post was made 'against' a perceived outsider, and 'in defence of' an national site treasure. Hence, a relatively neutral, vaguely positive response.
But, what is it, beyond personal whim, that defines the difference between the two definitions of 'aggressive' above?