When can philosophy be mistaken for passive-aggression?

When it’s dealing with issues of human interaction, that is. Civics. How to be a good friend… etc.

When attempting to generalise and de-personalise an issue, when most everyone suspects the same insinuated examples, does philosophy become passive aggressive, or does it unintentionally approximate it? How do you know which is which, when they are genuinely different? Can they be both?

I could come up with examples of what I’m talking about, but I’m trying to generalise.

So, no examples, no names, no argy-bargy over Internet specifics. When can philosophy be  mistaken for passive-aggression?

~ Bruce

P.S. Now I’ve got to move on to write on to write a short post about bullying online, and then I can get back to writing the stuff I want to write. Hooray! It’s good to be back!