Question of the day:

[featherynscale]

It is my understanding that in this culture, the proper response to random verbal abuse is to yell back, "Well, fuck you, then!" or some such brilliant retort. wolfieboy made a post about the tendency to do this about a week and a half ago.

So, my question is this: If you are the recipient of random verbal abuse and you have no particular urge to respond in the socially acceptable manner, i.e. by throwing it right back, is it more likely that you're enlightened/polite, or that you're apathetic/inured to abuse?

Comments

Re: responses to verbal abuse

[wolfieboy.livejournal.com]

I would say that for me, it's a case of not wanting to escalate the situation. If I respond in kind, I'm showing that what this person thinks is important to me and the interaction could last past the one bit of verbal abuse. I don't think it's actually worth the energy.

I guess you could call this a little bit of both although I, personally, don't think it's either apathy or enlightenment just a conservation of energy for things that actually matter.

Re: responses to verbal abuse

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

just a conservation of energy for things that actually matter.

So, enlightened apathy, then? :)

Re: responses to verbal abuse

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

Enlightened apathy is effective. Belligerent apathy can be fun.

And, since becoming a Mom, I've managed to perfect the "Oh, you misbehaving child. Why should I take your tantrum seriously?" look...which is best delivered in complete silence.

As always, I choose my weapons carefully -- and not all of those weapons happen to be words. Plus, I usually arrange for an alibi.