2

What is the closer term for a person (in a relationship) who argues with you but when it comes to you, he/she just dismisses you as being absurd without listening a any contrary opinion (probably because of a prejudice) or or/and what sort of manipulation is this called when one self claims such argument as one's victory without actually arguing or debating.

tchrist
  • 134,759
Anup
  • 69
  • We all have our peeves, @tchrist, but beating down pejorative language questions with mjolnir is inappropriate. This question has more than enough context to answer; the "add an example sentence" is just an excuse, we don't need any theater about that. I don't mind insta-closing questions without enough context, but let's do it to the questions which deserve it, not the ones that merely tickle our personal demons. – Dan Bron Jun 17 '17 at 19:09
  • 1
    @DanBron Can you honestly tell what's being asked for? Vast constellations of interconnected terms of various classes—verbs, adjectives, and both agent and abstract nouns—get used when a dismissive lover verbally abuses the other person out of bigotry for that person’s gender, sexuality, race, religion, caste, nationality, education, wealth, family, age, disability, illness, dietary restrictions, or appearance. The shortest adjective is "bad", the shortest noun is "ass"; from there we move up to "evil" and "jerk", and the rest are worse. Finding le mot juste cannot help them here. – tchrist Jun 17 '17 at 20:33
  • 1
    @tchrist what lover? what bigotry? who mentioned anything about gender or sex or race or dietary restrictions? the word wanted means a person prone to dismissing arguments without a fair hearing, i.e. regardless of content of the argument, but doesn't countenance that the other way around. Someone who is always right (don't suggest Dan Bron, please). – Dan Bron Jun 17 '17 at 20:36
  • 1
    @DanBron The thesaurus is a good starting point: dismissive, arrogant, bully, condescending, patronizing. If those don't work, surely something on those pages will. – tchrist Jun 17 '17 at 20:38
  • @tchrist To quote a great man those are answers, not comments. Re-open the question, please. In general, I am quite intolerant of someone not doing his homework before coming here to ask, that's my pet peeve, but that only applies when the path to research is straightforward, which applies to "what does this word mean" questions, not to the reverse "what is a word which has this meaning" questions. There is nothing special about this question which merits mjolnir. It's unfair to the OP. – Dan Bron Jun 17 '17 at 20:41
  • @DanBron A lover is a person in a relationship, something specified by the asker. A bigot is a person acting with prejudice, something else specified by the asker. We still don't know if they want a noun or an adjective, and whether that's for the person or the action, or in case it's for the action then whether it's a verb. I could provide hundreds of "answers" for all these many things. I don't think doing that helps the site, and I don't think that doing so helps the victim, either. Do you? – tchrist Jun 17 '17 at 20:45
  • Come now, these are all excuses, and I could risposte with equally vacuous observations: being a lover is one kind of relationship; there are others (brother, neighbor, friend, stalker). Bigotry might be the reason for dismissing the arguments; there are others (misunderstanding, exasperation, heuristics, naivete). We do not require OPs to specify a part of speech in questions; if none is specified, all are fair game. That said, the OP asks for two things "a person" [noun] and "manipulation" [verb]. So you can restrict your view to that if you're so disposed. – Dan Bron Jun 17 '17 at 20:50
  • 1
    But all this is mere sturm und drang. You're closing the question not for any of those ostensible reasons but because you are peeved by pejorative language. Being peeved is your right and unimpugnable. Closing the question is an abuse of power and odious. Drop the act. Open the question. Yes, I think helping OP find the word he's seeking is helpful, as well as those who follow after him. It's the charter of our site. If you want to banhammer questions, do it to the ones that deserve it. – Dan Bron Jun 17 '17 at 20:52
  • 2
    Whoever did the leg-work to find all those duplicates gets my vote. OP should have found at least one. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 17 '17 at 22:33
  • 1
    The original question(s) has some issues on top of it being a duplicate. It read a fair bit like a vent and really was two separate questions connected by the rhetorical ploy that if you answered the second you would be making a statement about accepting dismissive behavior as "probably because of prejudice" and "manipulative". That sort of editorial linkage is one reason questions should be asked separately. "Is someone dismissing the arguments of someone they are in a relationship with being manipulative?" is not an ELU question – Tom22 Jun 18 '17 at 00:24
  • @tchrist have you considered the fact that the OP might be the victim of such abuse, or know someone who is? Maybe s/he needs to know how to describe this negative personality trait? For a newcomer, perhaps a little leniency, or the benefit of the doubt be conceded. Searching the database for this type of SWR is not easy if you don't already know the answer. – Mari-Lou A Jun 18 '17 at 00:33
  • @Mari-LouA That's a fair question. Do you feel the linked duplicates are not answering the question? In particular the first one has a nearly identical title. The SE model is not to scatter good answers among repeatedly asked duplicates, but rather to add new answers to existing questions and linked the new questions to these. I couldn't tell what all was being asked (see the rhetorical flaws Tom22 justly points out), but I did find duplicates that seemed to answer some of the asker's questions. – tchrist Jun 18 '17 at 01:16
  • @tchrist the third question (word for a condescending, snarky...) is the most unhelpful in my modest opinion. I'm not keen about the answers on the first question either. The other questions, and especially What's a word for someone who wants to voice opinions but not have them challenged? have much better answers that should fulfill the OP's request or come fairly close. – Mari-Lou A Jun 18 '17 at 01:34
  • I did not find any duplicate entries while composing the question. It was entirely unintentional... – Anup Jun 20 '17 at 04:22

0 Answers0