Do you ignore or fight back when you've been defamed?
If someone has gone out of their way to disparage your character publicly you now have a problem that is difficult for most people to navigate since being a public figure is likely new territory. On the one hand you will feel compelled to defend yourself by responding to comments or accepting interviews with press. On the other hand you recognize the extreme risk in these actions and are motivated to weather the storm with hopes that this all just goes away.
Every situation is different so the general advice I give here should be taken as such, but here are some options to consider in regards to how you react to defamatory narratives that are meant to take you down.
Option #1: Ignore
Often your detractors are looking for a spectacular response because it will vindicate their negative opinion of you. As self-righteous as people can be, nobody wants to see themselves as a judgmental “Karen”. They want to prove that they were justified in being harsh to you publicly. One way that you grant them that is by making a big scene and appearing unhinged. Usually, the more you can rob them of an extreme reaction the better. They have a bad case of schadenfreude (the pleasure of seeing someone lose social status) and are licking their chops at see you going down. If you go about your days as if nothing has happened you deny them their juicy reaction and you also demonstrate to those around you that this accusation must not be as big of a deal as the online haters think it is. This approach takes a lot of stoicism and ego strength but it is almost always the best first option. Bullies want to feel like they have power over their target so if you ignore them they will eventually move on to someone else.
How ever salacious you think your story sounds to the public it will not be as interesting in a matter of months, maybe even weeks. The gossip mill will move on to another target and you’ll be left in its wake to lick your wounds. This means you need to survive the initial attacks and then things will calm down. The biggest risk of fighting back publicly is you keep the fire burning and the attention on you. In almost every case it is best to let people get bored of your story. Don’t add anymore drama.
Option #2: Laugh it off
Similarly to ignoring you might be able to flip the script and make your accuser look petty or crazy for what they have said by reacting with confident discredulity. If anyone brings it up to you and your response gives them the impression that the whole ordeal is ridiculous then they might start to distrust the source. You do not need to explain every detail to everyone around you. Sometimes by responding with disbelief and humour you can make other people believe that the accusations are “crazy”. Soon other people might respond similarly when the topic of your wrongdoings come up in conversation. “Pffsssh, you believe that?!”
There’s a balance needed for this approach as well. Faking it will not make it in this scenario. If your attempt to laugh it off comes off as unconfident and forced it could backfire. Scoffing at your accusations that are the least true is preferable. If some of the claims against you are irrefutably true you run the risk of looking unrepentant and cold when you respond with maniacal laughter, especially if your actions hurt someone.
Option #3: Psychological Retaliation
If you feel forced to fight back and you just can’t resist, be ware that everything you say and do will be used against you in the court of public opinion and there will be plenty of commenters online who will scrutinize your arguments in bad faith muddying the waters of fact and fiction. You better have a solid, convincing case to present to the public if you’re dreaming of redeeming yourself because it is a long shot in the best of situations. Once your name has been sullied, even if you’re exonerated in every official way possible you are still tarnished so you have to consider this as you weigh out your options. If you’re insistent on getting your side of the story out you are probably best off doing so indirectly. You might consider finding allies who are willing and able to go to bat for you and arm them with your most convincing counter argument. Everybody expects you to be defending yourself and will take your testimony as biased. When other people defend you it carriers more weight with the casual observer.
Another form of psychological retaliation is an attack on the source. If the person who has been most active in the campaign against you is themselves suspect it can be tempting to counter attack with your own character defamation. It is true that if your accuser looks less credible it has a chance of absolving you somewhat in the public eye but what is most likely is that you will both look bad. As best as you can, resist the urge for revenge. Attacking your attacker makes you look fragile, defensive, and petty. It is better to remain calm over time in the hopes that people can see their pettiness instead.
Instead of attacking a person who has done you wrong, if anything you might consider attacking the ideas that are out to get you. Every situation is different but the “facts” being used against you might be flawed and are worth picking apart (once again it is better to do this indirectly through someone else.) Maybe it’s clearly an ideology whose feathers you’ve ruffled or maybe there are principles worth defending through your case. There might be a social or political opinion that you hold that is not popular and has invited extra scorn into the equation. Without disparaging specific people you are pretty safe to criticize certain ideas or institutions. Just be careful about coming off like you have no responsibility whatsoever. Blaming the government or the church for all your mistakes doesn’t buy much favour with the public either.
Case Example:
When Kelly Donahue won his third game of Jeopardy in a row, with his Jeopardy clicker in hand he raised three fingers to signify his accomplishment. Unfortunately for him this gesture also happened to be a hand sign used by an obscure white supremacist group called the “3 Percenters”. Over 500 former Jeopardy contestants wrote an open letter condemning his behaviour and the show for not censoring him. Donahue faced a barrage of online hate and criticism. Instead of attacking the credibility or character of his accusers he made a social media post distancing himself from white supremacy and racism. He expressed his horror at being associated with such a vile movement but his repentance was not enough. Eventually he deleted all posts regarding the matter and stopped talking about it publicly. For a moment his case became a cause célèbre for many podcasters who wanted to decry “cancel culture” as well as some who used it as an example of the prevalence of white supremacy and the “dog whistles” that people get away with in media. Instead of launching a counter attack, Donahue took his $80,601 in winnings and went back to his job as an associate professor of English and let the storm pass. Meanwhile, he won allies across the political spectrum who argued the ridiculousness of the accusations. He made his apology but found more success in remaining quiet, ignoring the criticisms, and allowing his allies to fight the very premise of his attempted cancelling. In the end most people agree that his case is one of the clearest cases of the extremes of online cancel culture.