“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.
Paul James ● 1d