Why silence is often the best response to a verbal attack

Sometimes it's best to let them stew in their own juices.

Silence as a response seems to be very effective. Oftentimes, a verbal attack is designed to draw someone into a confrontation. My daughter has become proficient at this with me, knowing which issues I will respond to. I think she is somewhat frustrated when I return her intended verbal jab with a smile and head nod. I usually can see the frustration she gets when I simply sit there.

The last two days have been peaceful because of this article. Thanks for posting it!

found a relevant article

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1186123/jewish/SilenceGood-or-Bad.htm



particularly, the following lines stood out to me:

"When we are offended or hurt, respectful conversation is the only tool to resolve issues and repair relationships. Remaining silent and refusing to talk is a form of aggression and totally ineffective.

"Being quiet when we should talk creates dysfunction and disunity among us."

Archon wrote: Silence as a response seems to be very effective. Oftentimes, a verbal attack is designed to draw someone into a confrontation. My daughter has become proficient at this with me, knowing which issues I will respond to. I think she is somewhat frustrated when I return her intended verbal jab with a smile and head nod. I usually can see the frustration she gets when I simply sit there.

The last two days have been peaceful because of this article. Thanks for posting it!

This doesn't feel like a longstanding, productive sort of peace though. I hope it becomes a genuine one through talking and attempting to understand each other

I think like all potential actions, we should refrain from doing so unless it is the right thing to do, at the right time, for the right reason. There are no cure-alls, after all.

I never take anything on these forums as an absolute because that is giving me permission not to think about it anymore.

I think it really depends on topic and resons and person.
Mostly silence seems rude like ignoring or
like you are to weak and don't have anything to say.
Especially if you are surrounded with many people in places like work or school,
sielence can often make you a victim of bullying in any form.

I'm in this exact situation actually, I've had 2 passes at me recently for my last video, and rather then calling someone out on it I'm just letting them feel as special as they want to and respect their opinions, even though they aren't doing the same by any stretch of the means, lead by example right? A lot less stress to deal with by letting it go then to focus so much on someone else's choices in life.

I had the best experience with answering in a quiet voice against verbal attacks and anger.

When someone is angry and talks to you and you just stay quiet, they mostly feel comfortable and calm down. Or they have no reason to get more angry and they know you listen, even if they are angry.

Being silent is only useful, when someone tries to bring you down in a worst personal way, like offending you for your personality or habits.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G935F mit Tapatalk

Silence has also meant consent because to oppose injustice with reason demonstrated the injustice logically demands compensation for its wrongness. Apathy is often a sufferable condition of the injustice of a verbal attack because of the nature of the intent to overpower by greater force rather than by greater reason.

There's need to prove the wrong of an injustice when there are onlookers to demonstrate the injustice is unconsented and wrong. Once the injustice is demonstrated as unconsented and wrong, everyone else knows what to do too. Then leave the situation unescalated.

Silence as a tool of speech to me is too broad of a subject for this one discussion so I will write about the
situation displayed in the link from the first post.

I do agree that, in her situation, after saying she did not wish to speak of this any further that day, silence
might be the best choice. Generally being silent instead of speaking in the heat of the moment may be the
right or best thing to do, however as this moment passes so does the basis of the stance of being silent.

If used continually, it quickly becomes a tool of aggression as it denies the other party any and every kind of
chance to resolve this issue – their only way out would be to accept your point. Deciding not to engage instead
of attacking or defending is not inaction and does not undo the words said before. I believe the notion of ‘I will
be silent and thus this will not concern me’ to be faulty – she was already involved, already part of the argument.
She spoke her part and left her roommate to dwell on it – until the roommate moved out.

Regarding the broader picture: She and her roommate were not the only ones involved. This concerned the third
roommate – the one with the forks – too and allowed them to retain their ways of dealing with property. It
concerned the authors boyfriend too, these rumors more likely than not affected him too and as people do when
spreading rumors, the roommate probably told these a lot of people – all of which were affected, even if most
likely in minor ways.

Her silence protected her from the argument, but also from herself (she did not have to deal with the issue, which
to me was not the missing fork but a roommate badmouthing and attacking her at any possibility). In addition,
her choice of staying silent affected quite a few people around her, at the very least both her roommates and her
boyfriend.

The issue was not resolved but allowed to stay as it was. The conflicted was not resolved but escalated until time
cut it off. The conflict was not contained as it spread and affected more people.

It was not her duty to suffer with her roommate, not even her duty to help the roommate with the suffering or
even merely help with the forks (this would have been possible without engaging the roommate or even
participating in the argument) but I would argue she should have made sure it did not affect others around her.

I would have talked to roommate nr. 3 and gotten those forks back. Hand roommate 1 those and then let silence
be my argument.

If this honestly and absolutely was impossible (and I am not really convinced roommate 3 would have fought for
those forks) I would have bought new ones. A few forks to me don’t justify this kind of stress in my life. And yes,
after that I would make it a point to never use any of their stuff again.

I think that the author of the article makes said it best when she said "Silence is always in your toolbox"

It's not the ONLY tool, but one of many. If used for the appropriate task, it gives the best result.

The challenge is not only in using silence, but using it in the correct context.

I've had a very similar situation with a family member. She went on a rant, attacking me for a perceived slight to her daughter. In a single breath, she told me I was malicious, a bitch, socially inept, mean, cruel, pretentious, etc....) I responded with silence. When she finally blurted "I know you read my message, do you honestly have nothing to say for yourself?" I said "No, particularly not to someone who attacks my character" She sent one final message, but couldn't continue because I didn't engage her.

I'm still trying to figure out how to resolve her anger with me. But until I do, silence is the way to not make it worse, or to cause her anger to spread to other family members (because they're prone to taking sides).

On the other hand, I have another family member who perceives silence as resent/anger. So if there's bad feelings, the best way to deal with it is to talk it out with her.

Silence is powerful. And with great power comes great responsibility

Miss_Leah wrote: I think that the author of the article makes said it best when she said "Silence is always in your toolbox"

It's not the ONLY tool, but one of many. If used for the appropriate task, it gives the best result.

The challenge is not only in using silence, but using it in the correct context.

I've had a very similar situation with a family member. She went on a rant, attacking me for a perceived slight to her daughter. In a single breath, she told me I was malicious, a bitch, socially inept, mean, cruel, pretentious, etc....) I responded with silence. When she finally blurted "I know you read my message, do you honestly have nothing to say for yourself?" I said "No, particularly not to someone who attacks my character" She sent one final message, but couldn't continue because I didn't engage her.

On the other hand, I have another family member who perceives silence as resent/anger. So if there's bad feelings, the best way to deal with it is to talk it out with her.

Silence is powerful. And with great power comes great responsibility

Silence is definitely not the best solution in these situations because silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation.

Entropist wrote:
Silence is definitely not the best solution in these situations because silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation.

So you think that engaging in dialogue - which due to high emotion, would undoubtedly create even further tension - is a better solution? No. That is not a situation where reasonable discussion could be achieved. Later, when an aggressive person had calmed, sure, but not during their tirade.

I agree that silence is often the best response to a verbal attack, but not always. As others have said, silence can also be a vicious retaliation. Knowing when to respond with silence and when to respond with words could mean the difference between a new enemy and a new best friend.

Miss_Leah wrote: So you think that engaging in dialogue - which due to high emotion, would undoubtedly create even further tension - is a better solution? No. That is not a situation where reasonable discussion could be achieved. Later, when an aggressive person had calmed, sure, but not during their tirade.

A loaded question is begged in the first sentence of this reply. Further tension cannot be said to be undoubtedly created, only when a retaliation is made to the verbal attack that is unjustified.

Dialogue is paramount to mediation, and to synthesis a solution. During a verbal attack, there is only good reason to make efforts to de-escalate. Similarly, there is only good reason to think and meditate on these means.

Entropist wrote: Dialogue is paramount to mediation, and to synthesis a solution. During a verbal attack, there is only good reason to make efforts to de-escalate. Similarly, there is only good reason to think and meditate on these means.

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who is blindingly angry? Or told someone who is upset to "calm down"? No matter what you say, or how good your intentions, trying to engage with then verbally will not help. Sometimes silence (and, if appropriate, soothing physical contact) is the only way to allow emotions to settle before trying to engage a person verbally. Then, when both parties' minds are not clouded by emotion, reasonable discussion can be attempted to solve the conflict.

Entropist wrote:
Silence is definitely not the best solution in these situations because silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation.

EXACTLY what "situations" are you talking about?

she described two different situations, and suggested that silence was appropriate in one but not the other

you quoted both of those situations as if they were the same

and you made a statement that reads like an absolute truism that would be true even beyond the situations that were mentioned here when you said "silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation"

is silence ALWAYS a form of bullying?
is silence ALWAYS dehumanizing?

can you think of no single instance where someone might choose to remain silent because they honestly believe that is the wisest course of action?

or did you mean that silence CAN BE form of bullying, such as in the type/s of situation/s that Miss_Leah shared with us?

Miss_Leah wrote: Have you ever tried to reason with someone who is blindingly angry? Or told someone who is upset to "calm down"? No matter what you say, or how good your intentions, trying to engage with then verbally will not help. Sometimes silence (and, if appropriate, soothing physical contact) is the only way to allow emotions to settle before trying to engage a person verbally. Then, when both parties' minds are not clouded by emotion, reasonable discussion can be attempted to solve the conflict.

Yes I have reasoned with people who are blindly angry very successfully, and obviously the issue at hand is some have mediation and de-escalation skills to deal with confrontation and conflict, while the skill sets are absent in others.

If the word "sometimes" has to be said, the context actually begs the question when there's no specific examples to demonstrate "some of those times". De-escalation is a focus on other angry party that requires acknowledgement of the grievance. However, silence is a means of demonstrating not knowing what to do other than be silent.

Entropist wrote: Yes I have reasoned with people who are blindly angry very successfully, and obviously the issue at hand is some have mediation and de-escalation skills to deal with confrontation and conflict, while the skill sets are absent in others.

If the word "sometimes" has to be said, the context actually begs the question when there's no specific examples to demonstrate "some of those times". De-escalation is a focus on other angry party that requires acknowledgement of the grievance. However, silence is a means of demonstrating not knowing what to do other than be silent.

You're assuming that all people have (or should have) the skillset needed to de-escalate an aggressive situation. While that is certainly ideal, it's not a reasonable expectation.

As Jedi, sure, we can strive to learn how to de-escalate verbally. But not everyone has that level of insight. I think the point of the article is to explain that silence is better than engaging if there's a risk to escalate. And for Average Joe, that's a real risk.

Silence is the middle road: not as damaging as responding with emotion, but perhaps not as good as having the skill to defuse.

Miss_Leah wrote: You're assuming that all people have (or should have) the skillset needed to de-escalate an aggressive situation. While that is certainly ideal, it's not a reasonable expectation.

Clearly false, and demonstrated below by:

Entropist wrote: Yes I have reasoned with people who are blindly angry very successfully, and obviously the issue at hand is some have mediation and de-escalation skills to deal with confrontation and conflict, while the skill sets are absent in others.

And further supported by your own words below:

Miss_Leah wrote: But not everyone has that level of insight. I think the point of the article is to explain that silence is better than engaging if there's a risk to escalate. And for Average Joe, that's a real risk.

Silence is the middle road: not as damaging as responding with emotion, but perhaps not as good as having the skill to defuse.

Silence is well known as a means of dehumanisation, which disproves silence could be a middle road. Rather silence is well known to give consent, so in an argument, silence gives consent to the raised grievances. Alternatively as mentioned, silence is an evasive tactic because there was no reason to found on logic to disprove raised grievances.

As a result, silence is definitely often not the best response to a verbal attack.