| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:$chool $tr££t$ | |
| Posted by: | Paul James | |
| Date/Time: | 23/12/25 13:47:00 |
| “What is it called when somebody is being deliberately obtuse and difficult about small details of a scheme, but actually, in truth, just disagrees with it entirely, even though not doing it at all would adversely affect others?" A few different terms capture that behaviour, and the right one depends on the flavour of the obstruction. Here are the most fitting: ### 🧱 **Obstructionism** This is the broad, classic term. It describes someone who *deliberately* slows, complicates, or blocks a plan—not because of the stated “concerns,” but because they oppose the whole thing. They hide their real disagreement behind nitpicking or procedural fuss. ### 🪤 **Bad‑faith nitpicking** When someone fixates on trivial details as a tactic to derail the whole idea, rather than to improve it. The key is the *pretence* of engaging constructively. ### 🎭 **Feigning ignorance** (or *strategic obtuseness*) This is when someone pretends not to understand, or acts confused about simple points, to avoid engaging with the real issue. ### 🧩 **Seal‑ioning** (in some contexts) Originally about endless, insincere questioning, but it overlaps when someone uses pedantic demands for detail to stall or exhaust a proposal. ### 🧨 **Passive‑aggressive sabotage** If the behaviour is less overt—dragging feet, raising trivial objections, or “just asking questions” while quietly undermining the whole effort. --- If the key element is **they know the plan is necessary for others, but they still obstruct it because they personally dislike it**, then *obstructionism* or *bad‑faith nitpicking* is probably the closest match. If you want, you can describe the situation and I can help you pinpoint the most precise term or even craft a diplomatic way to call it out. |