A public way of dealing with obnoxious people is to shun them. Turning one’s backs on aggressiveness. It is pointless to argue because it becomes a shouting match. It moves one from being a target to being a response. This had been used in Mayor Ford’s current demise. He ends up talking to himself.
The principal is that the less the engagement the more possible that the outcome will be less confrontational. Going back to basics in anger management the need is to protect and keep control. By responding aggressively to aggression only escalates the situation. It proves a point It makes you “right” but then so what?
In domestic fights so often mountain come out of molehills. When there is verbal abuse it is better to withdraw and protect oneself rater than argue. All arguing does is draw the other into having to be more right. Frequently it is better to show the other how ne feels than to say it. As any form of dialogue will be used against the protest. So why bother? The same applies in office blow ups when the object becomes to make the other person “wrong”
The passive way has had major successes, the biggest one being Gandhi’s passive resistance to British colonial rule. Of course there are situations where this is not possible. But how many fights could be tamed by not engaging the enemy? This implies a rational thought that any anger that is fear based requires thought on how to respond. It is about creating options rather than becoming boxed in.