3 ms·

In her case, maybe ignore the comments that were critical in that way? Don't give them oxygen/validation personally. Alternatively, I tend to play a straight b

by prawn 7y ago

In her case, maybe ignore the comments that were critical in that way? Don't give them oxygen/validation personally. Alternatively, I tend to play a straight bat (this might be an Australian/English saying) in response to something like this and with minimal text - less you say, less there is to attack in response. If you indulge them too much, it only encourages more.

henrikschroder 7y ago
Right. As the article states, in-groups always attack apostates the hardest. There's a funny related phenomenon where people who try their best at being vegan get attacked for not being "vegan enough", instead of applauded for at least trying. Because it works. People who want to join the in-group are vulnerable to its criticism, but people who don't want to join don't give a shit in the first place. So when the woman in the article responded to the attack, the attackers smelled blood, and piled on, and increased their attacks. prompting her to defend herself even more, thereby giving even more material for the attackers. So it seems you have to defuse it before that point in time. Easy for me to say, really hard to recognize in the moment. Because that's the annoying paradox. If you get attacked, and you start thinking that you maybe were wrong, that you maybe wrote something bad, that you maybe hurt someone else, having those thoughts, those doubts, show that you didn't intend to. Yet the very proof of you not having ill intent, simply invites more attacks.
- prawn 7y ago
  I agree. I'm not vegan, but I often come across scenarios such as that you described. Same with people making an effort to reduce their environmental footprint. "But you drive a car when you have to pick up three children from separate locations within a short timespan! Practice what you preach!" "I saw you eat red meat last week!"

3 ms·

In her case, maybe ignore the comments that were critical in that way? Don't give them oxygen/validation personally. Alternatively, I tend to play a straight b

by prawn 7y ago

henrikschroder 7y ago
Right. As the article states, in-groups always attack apostates the hardest. There's a funny related phenomenon where people who try their best at being vegan get attacked for not being "vegan enough", instead of applauded for at least trying. Because it works. People who want to join the in-group are vulnerable to its criticism, but people who don't want to join don't give a shit in the first place. So when the woman in the article responded to the attack, the attackers smelled blood, and piled on, and increased their attacks. prompting her to defend herself even more, thereby giving even more material for the attackers. So it seems you have to defuse it before that point in time. Easy for me to say, really hard to recognize in the moment. Because that's the annoying paradox. If you get attacked, and you start thinking that you maybe were wrong, that you maybe wrote something bad, that you maybe hurt someone else, having those thoughts, those doubts, show that you didn't intend to. Yet the very proof of you not having ill intent, simply invites more attacks.
- prawn 7y ago
  I agree. I'm not vegan, but I often come across scenarios such as that you described. Same with people making an effort to reduce their environmental footprint. "But you drive a car when you have to pick up three children from separate locations within a short timespan! Practice what you preach!" "I saw you eat red meat last week!"