"Respectfully disagreeing" is passive aggressive behavior that stifles discussion and promotes censorship.

[Specchief]

Expressing disagreement with a symbol rather than explaining why is a cop-out and stifles conversation and discourse. If someone has an opinion they should expose it to public scrutiny in the same way as the person they are replying to with a X.

 

[InvisibleBison]

You're not entitled to an explanation of why I disagree with you.

 

[Specchief]

You're not entitled to an explanation of why I disagree with you.

If your intent is not to constructively communicate and engage in dialogue over disagreements, then why would you go to a forum and interact with posts at all beyond being passive aggressive?

 

[InvisibleBison]

If your intent is not to constructively communicate and engage in dialogue over disagreements, then why would you go to a forum and interact with posts at all beyond being passive aggressive?

Disagreeing with a post is not necessarily non-constructive. If I make a suggestion about a game, and get a bunch of disagrees, that's pretty constructive communication - the suggestion is clearly unpopular. Replies explaining why it's unpopular may be useful, but the disagrees aloe do communicate something useful. So too with more general discussion - if someone lays out a theory about game strategy, or complains about an upcoming change to a game, disagreeing with that post communicates something useful both to the poster and to everyone reading the post.

Moreover, disagreeing with a post is not passive aggression. I don't think it's particularly aggressive at all, but if it was it could only be construed as active aggression. Going up to someone and telling them you think they're wrong is by no means passive.

 

[Specchief]

Disagreeing with a post is not necessarily non-constructive. If I make a suggestion about a game, and get a bunch of disagrees, that's pretty constructive communication - the suggestion is clearly unpopular. Replies explaining why it's unpopular may be useful, but the disagrees aloe do communicate something useful. So too with more general discussion - if someone lays out a theory about game strategy, or complains about an upcoming change to a game, disagreeing with that post communicates something useful both to the poster and to everyone reading the post.

Moreover, disagreeing with a post is not passive aggression. I don't think it's particularly aggressive at all, but if it was it could only be construed as active aggression. Going up to someone and telling them you think they're wrong is by no means passive.

It is passive because you are not exerting your own opinion, merely dissenting in a nonconstructive manner.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

It is passive because you are not exerting your own opinion, merely dissenting in a nonconstructive manner.

I respectfully disagree to that.

 

[InvisibleBison]

It is passive because you are not exerting your own opinion, merely dissenting in a nonconstructive manner.

Again, reacting with respectively disagree is not necessarily nonconstructive.

Also, how is signalling that you disagree with something not "exerting your opinion"? "I don't like this" or "I think this is a bad idea" are perfectly valid opinions.