Hypothetical Scenarios
Theoretical Questions and Answers
(we don't want to offend anyone else do we?)

Exercising My Right to Think, Hypothesize and Theorize which the (as yet) Non Psychiatrized  'Others' Now Take for Granted

I have stated that I get treated 'as if' my life, as defined by third parties, were reality. Let's try doing just the opposite here and treat the reality I 'claim' to experience 'as if' it were true as defined by me...Just for fun.

A Little Quiz on the Meaning of Passive-Aggressive

I know you all like to have lots of "fun" here locally, so let's have a good time with this one used for group input just like in the est-ee nurse's really "fun" est exercises. (which of course, do not exist).

Some wonder what passive aggressive actually means so let's use one of my fascinating delusions to examine the notion shall we? Here is one of my fabrications which we will now treat "as if" it were really possible.

(though of course we know it is not as there would be no reason for real people to behave this way.)

Let's imagine this little scenario:

Two local city bus drivers decide it would be a lot of fun to join in the ongoing harassment of the whack job but they know, of course, not being complete idiots, that that they cannot do anything overt, or obvious, as they might get caught or fired doing that. So they talk it over on the bus radio and one comes up with a suggestion on how to cause some more problems for the targeted inferior.

He calls to the other, as the inferior one sits on one of their buses..."She never goes out to her stop until a couple of minutes before it is due to arrive so if you can manage to get away from the square a couple of minutes early you can make her miss it."

The other responds, "Great idea...OK."

At another time one of the same two drivers passed by the inferior one as she waited at the bus stop, picked up speed as he passed her, and avoided looking in her direction even as the person he picked up at the previous stop appeared to try to tell him she was there.

These are two nicely fabricated examples of passive aggressive behaviour.

Do you understand the difference between this kind of "covert" aggression and overt aggression?

Basically the difference is that the hostility is not an overt action but more like a withholding of action. Something is done to make life more difficult for the target and to "punish" her for the real, or imagined, reasons which justify it, but no overt action is taken such as hitting her with a bus, running over her foot or deliberately closing the doors on her as she gets off. This kind of passive aggression is also more difficult to prove which is usually why the passive aggressive types use it to act out their own mental problems, which they routinely deny exist.

Another example would be like the difference between injecting someone with something to cause a heart attack (overtly aggressive) and watching someone have a heart attack, while smiling and deciding not to call 911 on the cell phone in your hand. (passive aggressive)

This type of personality often employs the "them and us" mentality to justify the behaviour which is used fundamentally to make the one justifying it feel better about himself. It is disguised though as being about the "other." Of course he does not generally recognize that, as introspection is not part of his own psycho spiritual development and he prefers to externalize pretty much everything, which, if expressed in estian terms might be stated as, "what he does with problems is hand them to someone else."

(The one on the receiving end of his "covert" acting out on socially sanctioned targets.)

I hope this helps to clarify the difference. It might be 'fun' to poll some of the local bus drivers and see if it seems clear to them. Rather than get inputs from all of them we could just make it a kind of mini quiz and get just a sampling. How about just polling the bus drivers currently driving on routes, let's say...2B and 10 Imperial?

Getting some inputs from them may help to determine if I am writing this clearly. As you know we whack jobs often have problems making ourselves understood by the normal others. Perhaps this will help reduce that mysterious "stigma" that comes out of nowhere for reasons not currently understood?

So to that end, two simple questions for the sampling poll of local bus drivers.

Is my description of the difference between the two types of aggression clearly stated and understandable?

If this type of behaviour were to actually exist in concrete reality, and we all know of course that it does NOT, and I am just fabricating this as an example, would that kind of behaviour be wrong?


Perception/Reaction/Outcome  Problem 1

Here is one of those hypothetical realities about which I am proposing we use as a means of opening ourselves up to possibilities. (I like to use the game boy's jargon now to make my points...now ain't this 'fun'?)

Let's keep this first one short so we can all focus on it and come up with some possible (or probable) outcomes. based on what may, or may not, be reality as we all understand it.

Just suppose that all the people I told you about being involved in this were, in fact, really involved in this going all the way back to 93. Imagine that what I told you all about the nurse 'setting me up' for an attack by a group of his co-workers  was in fact TRUE, (come on...humour me) and that those people you decided were really just a manifestation of my paranoid delusional mental illness, were those same people, who got caught psychologically abusing a worker. So they then decided to conceal the truth about what they did to take care of their own interests. Suppose the hospital administration then told them they were not to admit to anything. 

In theory now, do you think that group of people would be quite happy to go along with that instruction?

Do you think they would tend to go along with what the original protagonist had done because of their “participation” in it?

Do you think they would have any sense of guilt at all, or would they perhaps look for ways to blame their victim for it?

Is blaming the victim for being a victim a fairly common phenomenon?

Do you think that may have something to do with such participants wanting to delude themselves that such things could not happen to THEM because they won't CHOOSE to be a victim?

Does that idea give them a false sense of security?

Does it also help them to excuse themselves in what they do when they help to victimize someone by handing the responsibility for their thinking and behaviour,  to their victim?

Do you suppose that is what that line in the psychiatric nurse's so called 'training' (in my own hypothetical case) means when it states“what you do with problems is hand them to someone else?

Do you think they notice that when they do that, they simultaneously support and enable the aggressor who can then 'hide' in plain sight within the group?

Now if such a hospital administration were to focus on politics and appearances as their first priority, would that end up eventually affecting them negatively as a direct result of such a focus? Could they be blindsided about what was to come?

What if they pulled in a whole lot more people to actually observe the targeted victim? Could that end up being a real problem for them in the end, if all those people were, in fact, the 'strangers' the targeted victim 'claimed' were talking about her, right in front of her, like she was not there?

Would such an administration regret that they had not listened to the victim when she had come to them offering them resolution, with discretion, long before this all went public?

Even if no one took any legal action at all against the aggressor who started it all, would everyone else believe that their own reputations were not harmed by their failure to deal with the problem with all the ethics and integrity they CLAIM is what they are all about?

Is it even possible to keep such an event 'secret' when all these people are involved in it even if you continued indefinitely to tell the victim there were no 'people' in it and that nothing had happened in reality at all?

Do you think that the destruction of the victim’s concrete life as a result would matter to them at all? Or would the victim be considered to be expendable?

Is it possible that the people in control of everyone and everything (or who want to be anyway) could end up destroying their own reputations BECAUSE of the desire to control everything and everyone?

It sounds almost like self destructive, self fulfilling, prophecy doesn't it? Or is that just me reading too much into things again?

I am speaking hypothetically of course but, is it not a good mental exercise for all of us to theorize about possible ultimate outcomes, preferably before they get so bad that any salvaging of the reputations of those involved becomes pretty much impossible?