Why silence is often the best response to a verbal attack

Have a look at the article here:

http://tinybuddha.com/blog/why-silence-is-often-the-best-response-to-a-verbal-attack/

It's something that's worth considering, especially online.

Silence feels oddly vulnerable - when we're being attacked verbally we're used to using our own words as our shield (or sometimes even our sword) - at any rate, as something with which to defend/protect ourselves. Somehow it feels as though, if we take that away, we're practically sacrificing ourselves...

But the real shield is our mind. If we're secure enough in ourselves to not take what is being said personally, the attacker can say whatever they like and it wont matter.

What I do find is that responding to people with silence often escalates the attacker's anger, like the article mentions. Sometimes that anger burns itself out with no opposing words to fuel it, but sometimes the silence can be a fuel even more potent. 'Warning' people that I'm about to stop responding often seems to help diffuse things a little - "I'm not prepared to talk about this any more" or "I'm not prepared to continue discussing this until we've both had a chance to calm down" - that way it can come across a little more as though you have formally ended the conversation as is your right to do, rather than simply 'giving the silent treatment' which may be perceived as childish or rude.

Thanks Edan!

I don't actually agree that silence is a good response.
Mainly because I have seen it used and it comes across as dismissive and rude.
If the other is angry then yes, tell them you will continue the discussion when they are calm and you can both talk sensibly but too often especially online silence is used as a form of attack.

elizabeth wrote: I don't actually agree that silence is a good response.
Mainly because I have seen it used and it comes across as dismissive and rude.
If the other is angry then yes, tell them you will continue the discussion when they are calm and you can both talk sensibly but too often especially online silence is used as a form of attack.

thank you

i do actually think silence is good at certain times but when i read the article i thought "well it didnt work for HER did it?"
i mean she never did get the issue resolved

the roommate moved out, eventually
but not everyone has that luxury

being willing to speak your truth and also to really hear the other persons truth is better

being willing and able to have a conflict, if it has to be a conflict, but capable of doing it without getting stuck in feeling pettiness towards the other

---

"Over the next few weeks, I waited for my roommate to come to me in a calm manner to resolve her issues with me, but she never did. Any chance she had, she continued to speak to me in a hateful manner, even though I didn’t engage her."

my response is YOU SHOULD HAVE ENGAGED HER - IF YOURE SO SMART WHY DIDNT YOU GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS??

lol

duh

Silence can be a form of ego, refusing to submit that you have even seen the other's response. Silence can be hiding from the truth. Or it can be knowing the truth so hard that you gently push the other to go back and really read what you've already said and /listen/. It can also help heal a conflict and create a healthy distance.

The person in the blog's conflict could have reached out to the person that was hurting instead of leaving them in pain. I feel as if what they did was overly involved with their own world instead of trying to help.

If one has a verbal attack toward me, it signifies that it is priority that I be silent and listen, and learn, until I am asked to speak. It is my respect to them and their issue.

An Open mouth and a Closed mind are not able to be reasoned with. It is best to follow a simple lesson...

Who is the more Foolish, the Fool, or the One who Argues with it?

My problem in arguments is I get too technical and logical, as if they are an opportunity to explore and explain... which lets be honest when not upset makes it very easy to crush the likewise efforts of someone who might already be quite upset. It's not very polite no matter the good intention. Sometimes people just want to vent, and people often say stuff they don't mean, and sometimes stuff that doesn't even make much sense LOL... but is that the best time to point it out to them!?

I think the answer is to be aware of the situation and respond appropriately. Sometimes continuing to speak works, other times, as Elizabeth says, staying silent may make things worse.

In all situations though, including (especially) online, thought should be taken before response. Sometimes responding, if you respond in a confrontational or poorly worded way, may make things worse than if you had just said nothing.

One thing to remember is that the relationship in the article ended. Not immediately, but it did, and it didn't seem to get any better before it ended. The silence was an indicator that the argument wasn't going to upset the writer, but it did not help to mend the relationship.

As has been said, remaining silent for a time can be a sign of respect. Let them get all of what they want to say out, but if you don't respond at all then expect the relationship to be over. If this were a stranger verbally attacking me then sure, I'll be silent and walk away. Why should I let that affect my day? But if my significant other is angry and taking it out on me then I better darn sure listen, let her get it out, and then speak calmly to hopefully address the actual problem.

An interesting article and good to remember, but not a steadfast rule. Though almost nothing ever is.

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.