When you see someone being overly defensive, what do you think?

Lol! Is this the class warfare Obama was speaking of?

This is just my opinion, but sometimes I feel one may not be very secure in their beliefs when they become very hostile. Other times, they may just be very passionate about defending what they feel is important, especially when there are misconceptions being presented.

Would they be so defensive if they didn’t think they were so weak?

Usually I’m defensive when I am pushed.

If you are attacked, do you think it’s better to hold fire or to go instantly on the counter-attack?
I attempt to keep my composure while addressing the topic at hand.

What is the actual topic here @wundayatta? What are you attempting to resolve with your questioning?

I almost always defend myself (or friends), if I see a point to it. If I don’t see a point in defending myself (or my friends), I walk away. When I say “a point”, what I mean is the chance that I’ll be listened to or brushed off. When I’m pretty sure that I’m going to be easily brushed off, I don’t bother.

It’s not a sign of weakness, either way you go. Defending oneself is not weak, it’s bold. Walking away is not weak, it can either be construed as bravery or indifference.

Whichever way I choose to handle a situation, I know there are bound to be various reactions. Depending on the day, regular life stresses, and who the reactions are coming from, it may or may not bother me.

I applaud @SpatzieLover for being able to maintain her composure in most cases; I can’t claim the same self-control when I feel pushed or maligned.

I think it’s hilarious that this Q comes on the heels of another Q in which many people felt the need to defend themselves, and I am also curious to know what you hope to get out of this.

Do you admire them for their willingness to defend themselves? If they didn’t defend themselves, would you see that as a sign of weakness? It really depends on the circumstances (and the person). If the person has a long history/pattern of very defensive responses, I’m likely to hold this behavior in poor regard. But, if someone is being challenged around something that is long-held or hard-won, I’d rather expect a type of defensiveness if challenged.

Do you see the defensiveness, itself, as a sign of weakness. Would they be so defensive if they didn’t think they were so weak? Not a weakness, per se, but more of a “flaw” or a behavior pattern to tackle.

Suppose the defense consisted of ad hominem attacks or appeals to authority—would that seem persuasive to you? Suppose the ad hominem attacks were a response to an initial ad hominem attack? Would that make it more legitimate? My response will be entirely circumstantial again, but generally, I would give less credence to an ad hominem attack than an argument or defense that is laid out in a logical format, without any emotional language.

If you are attacked, do you think it’s better to hold fire or to go instantly on the counter-attack? When deciding this, do you consider what non-combatants will think of your strategy, or is that irrelevant? If I’m under an emotional attack (wild accusations without basis), I’m likely to get my hackles up and go on a counter-attack. If I’m strictly being “attacked” in a nonsensical manner, I’ll probably attempt the high road.

All of this is written without specific context, of course.

Depends now. If he defends himself in a right cause I respect it. I don’t consider it a weakness if they don’t defend. Well they may not fight back because it’s a waste of time trying to explain to others he’s right.

And a lot of other factors.

Control issues. Large ego. Chip on shoulder. Unwillingness to admit being wrong.

^^ And see, those are the thoughts I have about the people who cause others to go on the defensive.

En garde!

Do you admire them for their willingness to defend themselves?
Admire, not really. But I appreciate someone who can reason their position well.

If they didn’t defend themselves, would you see that as a sign of weakness?
No, if I question your position, whether you defend it or not is only that.

Do you see the defensiveness, itself, as a sign of weakness.
Defensiveness as in “I’m right, that’s all I have to say; nothing you say will make me change my mind; it doesn’t matter what you think it’s about what I know.” yeah, that’s weak. But in the sense of sticking to their position until the last tent pole falls, I’ve got no issue with that.

Would they be so defensive if they didn’t think they were so weak?
Not sure I’d agree with that, defensiveness can be a natural reaction to being challenged especially if they don’t know why or are wary of the others motives; but the “I’m right because I say so” argument or refusing to hear or consider questioning does make me wonder about what’s up.

Suppose the defense consisted of ad hominem attacks or appeals to authority—would that seem persuasive to you?
Ad hominem attacks annoy me. Appeals to authority are fine if properly based (i.e. the authority is actually an authority and their reasoning isn’t isolated) but, if I have enough knowledge on the subject I won’t accept it carte blanche.

Suppose the ad hominem attacks were a response to an initial ad hominem attack? Would that make it more legitimate?
Nope, just more annoying.

If you are attacked, do you think it’s better to hold fire or to go instantly on the counter-attack?
Depends on my mood, if I’m up for a good debate, I’m all in guns blazing. If it’s just baiting or I’m distracted I might see where they want to go with it. Otherwise, life is busy, I can’t stop every time someone disagrees with me or I with them.

When deciding this, do you consider what non-combatants will think of your strategy, or is that irrelevant?
You’re in or your out. If you want to sit on the sidelines and get huffy about it, that’s your business, if you have something to say speak up – that’s what debates are for (in my opinion).

Sometimes I see someone who knows they have been called out on bullshit and is desperately trying to dig themselves out of a humiliating hole.

Sometimes I see someone who is desperately trying to stand up for what they genuinly believe in but feels they are hitting a brick wall in every direction.

I respect the latter example more because, I myself often feel defensive when it comes to something I am really passionate about. Not because I feel that my beliefs are weak but because either my way of expressing myself is weak or that others simply don’t care as much as I think they should and I can’t make them care. I think, rightly or wrongly, I can blame human nature for this.

No one said it couldn’t go both ways. If you think about it, those who “just can’t let it go” are the same, no matter what side of an issue they fall on.

Depends on the issue. I enjoy seeing my ideological fellows defending successfully against attack (or brushing off trolls, and knowing which is which). In these cases, I like hearing strong, valid arguments that expose the folly of my enemies. In these cases, I like seeing my enemies making bad arguments, and doing it poorly.

@wundayatta I think you caught the major gist of the conundrum here in your own question. Many times with people, especially when dealing with large crowds and opinions such as a site like this (but not this one, because this one is Jelly! ♥) You have a catch 22.

You get abused by some for not defending yourself and you get ridiculed and called things like “Ignorant” when you don’t allow an abuser to be abusive without relatiating.

Either way you are wrong depending on which direction you look or who is looking at you.

I beieve the term is… “Damned if you do and damned it you don’t”

I think that the OQ is questionable. Who determines that someone is “overly” defensive? Is it the one who might be being “overly” aggressive? Vigorous aggression often espouses vigorous defensiveness. This isn’t rocket science. The question seems to me to be baiting and merely another effort by the poster to engage others in debate on a very tired posture.

I have been reading other recent posts that seem to be the ancestors of this one, and I find that there is a lot of immaturity, insensitivity and what appears to be a lack of intelligence in some of the comments. Other posters, whatever their position on the topics discussed, are providing and encouraging thoughtful and respectful responses, but some seem unable to be persuaded to abandon negative and redundantly inane attacks comments.

Is this an attention-seeking device? Is it an effort to feel powerful, or an assumption that other like-minded individuals secretly respect or enjoy the dialogue? (Interestingly, but not surprisingly, this seems to typically happen more frequently when the perpetrator feels that their POV is in the majority.) These may be some of the results that motivate a school-yard bully.

Evidently, the OP is not aware that the baiting and ad nauseum commentary will not impress mature, rational or intelligent people, no matter what their position may be on the topic which is on the table. Nor will it persuade anyone to change their beliefs.

When a person is unable to get the message, however intelligently and repeatedly offered, I have come to the conclusion that sometimes the only solution is for others to refuse to respond or refuse to give the satisfaction required by the perpetrator.

That’s what I choose to do.

@InTheZone THis kind of situation can be played out simply on playgrounds between bullies and being told to “Turn the other cheek” Mind you, the premise behind turning the other cheek is knowingly preparing the other cheek to potentially get slapped yet again.

and something in the extreme like a religious Fatwa where for showing a negative image of a religious leader SOME people feels merits punishment to the extreme of death.

In my opinion, everyone cries about tolerance, and yet when asked to BE tolerant, as in turning the other cheek at an imposed and intentional slight, why should a person be socially punished for not taking a higher moral ground when it leaves others to run amuck based on this same premise of “Tolerance”

I believe political correctness was created by cowards FOR cowards so that the kind of people who do not know how to fight back, or don’t want to be labeled for doing so, can be as inflamatory and incendary as they like within a system that acceptibly removes consequence to action.

I cry foul!

Who me – defensive? I didn’t do nothing wrong!

@GabrielsLamb I’m not sure I understand you. Are you for or against tolerance? I’m not entirely sure, but it seems like you are against it. It sounds like you’re saying people should never tolerate wrongness wherever they find it. Yet it also seems like you are saying that there should be no efforts to protect people who are wrongly discriminated against, since they will take those protections and run with them.

Do I understand you properly?

When I’m attacked, I try to understand what the hell I did wrong. If I do come to understand that I did wrong someone, I disappear in a little hole, but I will also apologize, if I got enough guts at the time lol. Most times though, I stick to my guns and try to explain shit better if I believe that my meaning was not understood as I meant it.

I believe that over the top self defense can be a lot of what I described. Or perhaps the hat fit, or someone said something the other didn’t like, or buttons were pushed. I will admit to fighting off hats that fit, myself. I’m only human, man! :D I mean, I wish I could turn into a Super Saiyan, but alas.

I’m thinking they probably need to lighten up and grab a cold one.

Nowt, briefly observe then walk away completely unperturbed.