“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he becomes wise in his own eyes.” —–Proverbs 26:4-5

The other day I was having a rather light-hearted discussion with a friend when out of the blue, I was verbally attacked, side-swiped, by an indignant interloper. This person questioned my integrity, character, and motives, and they were quite forceful and condescending about it. I wasn’t prepared for this bucket of verbal cold-water and I was rather taken aback. Instead of defending myself, continuing the discussion with my friend, I withdrew myself from the tension and sought peace. Retreating to a quiet world of my own, I sat stewing.

It is a few weeks away from that strange verbal ambush and I am still disturbed by it. I am a somewhat analytical person by temperament, so naturally, I have over the last two weeks chewed on my frustration and wonder why I am still a bit bothered. Initially, I know it is because I like to be understood, and when my words are completely twisted into something I didn’t say or intend to say it is quite maddening. But my overall frustration goes deeper than that, and I have found two things that have ignited my angst. I have also realized that these two things can be found in the world of popular ethics and morals where the left, right, and center are battling out behavioral constructs on what it means to be a compassionate human, a good person.

Here are my two observations:

(1) Because I decided to leave the discussion and seek peace the person on the other side of the discussion was left feeling vindicated. In his mind, he won. And since there was no real “push-back” (a cool new word) to their judgmental interloping, they have more reason to believe that they are right and perfectly justified in being the moral policeman for all people. As a result, that gives them more fuel to go on interloping and ambushing others they know nothing about. Another cool new phrase for that type of behavior is termed “virtue signaling”, where a person enters the discussion not to try to understand the other differing sides, but to be better, superior, and confident that they are standing on the moral high ground when often the opposite is true. They came swooping in, wearing a large “S” on their chest, taking the role of judge and jury, indicting and condemning in the same breath. When you really look at it, this type of behavior makes them the one who is actually judgmental. Their moral superiority is nothing more than veiled hypocrisy. They are hanging themselves with their own rope.

(2) The interloper of the discussion did not come in with logic and reason, but anger and rage. “I’m outraged”, and “offended”, and “utterly shocked by what I hear,” they say with arms crossed and chin held high. Instead of following the argument and properly assessing the attitude of the differing parties, they come in with their moral guns blazing. One of my favorite statements about argumentation was made by Timothy Keller when he says, “Even in an argument, you need to show love. And the way you do that is by understanding the other side so well that you can restate their position better than they can. Love first listens.” Well, most moral interlopers and value signalers don’t try to listen, they only want to chastise and belittle the opposition, which was me. I didn’t feel loved in the discussion, I felt like a third-grader being scolded by one of my nuns in Parochial school, “Now Mr. Weeks, go sit in the corner until you are ready to play nice!”

So what should we do about this new age of virtue signaling? Give up and give in the moral high ground to angry small people? Do we let them feel vindicated when they are the actual problem? When we let crazy people with crazy habits and fetishes rewrite the societal laws by degrading people who want to live traditionally healthy lives, I am not sure we are doing anyone a favor. We are only adding fuel to their fire. So what do we do with the person who acts offended but is using the word ‘offense’ merely as a tactic to dominate and belittle others? Any answers?

Yes, I went back to some sources of deep wisdom that have great insight on how to handle side-swipes and interlopers, haughty people who are naughty and are trying to justify their naughtiness by accusing and labeling genuine goodness as repression. I have learned some insight on how to shut up plain evil people.

Fight Fire with Fire

My kids taught me an important lesson when they were under ten: “Dad, when you have a grass Pokemon you will lose every time you try to fight a fire Pokemon. And a fire Pokemon must be defeated either by another fire or water. Grass, however, defeats water. But never, ever fight fire with grass.” Wow, what a lesson that is, “fight fire with fire or water, never grass.” Sadly, when it comes to discussions with haughty interlopers I completely forgot all of this.

I try to fight fire with grass. And I only get burnt and it allows the fire to get bigger. Does that make sense?

Moral interlopers and social justice warriors only use fire. They are moved by passsion and anger. So when you calmly try to use logic and reason against them, their anger only comes to singe and burn. They don’t want to enter a logical argument, they want to belittle and hurt. They want to cast their opponent as morally inferior and they use outrage to do it. So instead of trying to reason with them, shoot fire back. Call them the villian, cast them as the hypocrite, be angry back. Responding in fire will take them off guard.

Yeah, but it will only bring more argument and polarization. So what? They don’t want peace, they want victory. When you let them win by pulling back, you are giving them everything they want. Kindness and peace hands to them the high ground without a fight. So, if they want to fight, fight. But what about “blessed are the peacemakers?” Sometimes Jesus came not “to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34). Or you can also use water against them. Water is humor. “Do not answer a fool according to his folly.” When a person is not listening or caring about your arguments, they don’t deserve to be talked to in a reasonable way.

You Don’t Owe an Explanation

Another lesson I learned when it came to arguing with fools was from Willy Wonka, the Gene Wilder Willy, not the Johnny Depp one. Every time someone asked Willy Wonka a question he never answered them as they were expecting. Follow his logic closely…

Violet Beauregarde: Well they can’t be real people.
Willy Wonka: Well of course they’re real people.
Mr. Salt: Stuff and nonsense.
Willy Wonka: No, Oompa Loompas.
The Group: Oompa Loompas?
Willy Wonka: From Loompaland.
Mrs. Teevee: Loompaland? There’s no such place.
Willy Wonka: Excuse me, dear lady…
Mrs. Teevee: Mr. Wonka, I am a teacher of geography.
Willy Wonka: Oh, well then you know all about it and what a terrible country it is. Nothing but desolate wastes and fierce beasts. And the poor little Oompa Loompas were so small and helpless, they would get gobbled up right and left. A Wangdoodle would eat ten of them for breakfast and think nothing of it. And so, I said, “Come and live with me in peace and safety, away from all the Wangdoodles and Hornswogglers and Snozzwangers and rotten Vermicious Knids.”
Mr. Salt: Snozzwangers? Vermicious Knids? What kind of rubbish is that?
Willy Wonka: I’m sorry, but all questions must be submitted in writing. And so, in the greatest of secrecy I transported the entire population of Oompa Loompas to my factory here.

If you notice, when he is talking to the teacher he doesn’t care she is a teacher of geography, in fact, he reverses her point and switches responsibility back to her. She is trying to paint him as the idiot, but he includes her into his world making her complicitious in the idiocy. And when Mr. Salt tries to insult him, he does not allow the insult to land, but rather, ignores it completely. We let people, I let people,  get under my skin too much. I let insults land. Willy Wonka was secure in his zaniness, and stayed the course, employed orange men in the work of making chocolate. And that is the point, they want to stop us on our quest for personal truth. Why do their voices matter? Why do we let them win when their winning is everyone’s losing?

Did you know Jesus did the same thing that Willy Wonka did? Check it out, he rarely answers questions directly and never does what people want him to do. One of the Bible’s strongest statements says this, “Jesus did not trust HImself to them, for He knew all men. He did not need any testimony about man, for He knew what was in a man…I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.” (John 2:24-25, 5:41-43)

Wow, Jesus was not beholden to any man. He didn’t owe man an explanation, nor did he want other men to affirm his validity. Could you imagine someone telling Jesus he offended them?

Who has done the real offending? Those who deny the truth, and Jesus Christ as God’s Only Begotten Son. It is his opinion that matters most. So, don’t give in just to make peace. And every once in a while, bring a sword. It might do the fool you are talking to some good!