Discerning When to Share and When to Step Back

If you haven’t noticed in my previous posts, I’m one of those chronically online folks who argues with people on internet forums. I normally tell inspiring personal stories or relatable anecdotes in the GPS, but today I’m going to introduce you to some concepts from internet arguments.

There’s a term called sea-lioning. It goes back to a comic that went viral in 2014, but it describes internet arguments so accurately that it has taken on a life of its own now. It’s a subtle form of harassment that involves finding someone you don’t like and inundating them with passive-aggressive questions and requests for evidence under the guise of civility and open conversation. “I’m just trying to wrap my brain around this…” followed by a long series of rebuttals and arguments, and if you opt out of the conversation, you’re the uncivil one.

There’s another term coined by a psychologist in the 90s that’s relevant here: DARVO. It’s an acronym: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. It’s a subtle form of harassment that’s used by abusers, manipulators, and generally awful people. The gist is similar: wait until someone is hurt, offended, or worn down, and then turn it back on them to paint yourself as the victim and them as the real instigator. It’s a horrible blend of gaslighting, control, and demoralizing blame. Most people who have been through abusive relationships know it well.

Both are known more generally as bad-faith arguments: arguments made with the intention of misleading or harassing rather than seeking truth or understanding, but masquerading as the latter. Our social need for civility and politeness is sometimes weaponized—especially against people who are expected to be more civil and polite.

Subtle harassment is very common online because of the anonymity and lack of real consequences, but once you see the patterns, you see them in other places: in your Facebook comments, workplace conversations, or even in your home. Arguments are sometimes over before they start, and engaging in them can make things worse rather than better.

I think this is a fantastic explanation for Jesus’ words today about casting your pearls before swine. People aren’t swine because of who they are; they’re swine because of what they choose and how they choose to engage. If you’ve experienced this, let me affirm you: this is harassment. Maybe not the kind that will get you fired, but it’s done with the intent of making your life worse. Having the vocabulary and knowledge to identify these interactions makes it easier for you to not engage—and that may be the best option.

I’m a firm believer that the world needs to be a kinder place, and there’s a lot of room for that in our conversations, both online and in real life. If someone is genuinely seeking your opinion or compromise, please, talk honestly and patiently with them. But there should also be recognition that a positive outcome is just not possible in some interactions. Like Jesus said, they will stomp on the pearls, then turn around and attack you. Some conversations, interactions, and even entire relationships are not worth having because the other person is working hard to keep it from working. In these situations, engaging politely can (and is designed to) wear you down to exhaustion, and escalating can make things much worse. If there’s no good outcome, you don’t have to engage.