Radical Empathy in the Comment Section: A Field Guide for Staying Human Online

In a digital world where argument is performance and curiosity is rare, radical empathy might seem like a lost cause. But it’s more needed than ever.

Whether it’s a heated thread on reproductive rights, gun laws, climate change, or the latest identity-politics controversy-of-the-day, conversations online often feel like ideological cage matches. But what if we chose to approach those conversations with integrity, interest, and a bit of grace?

Radical empathy doesn’t mean agreeing with everyone—or surrendering your convictions. It means engaging (or not engaging) in a way that honors truth, human dignity, and your own peace of mind.

I. What Radical Empathy Is (and Isn’t)

Radical empathy is the willingness to see the full humanity of someone who might completely disagree with you. And to do this genuinely, you would be curious about their thoughts and ideas and the position they are coming from. The goal is to connect, cultivate empathy, and hopefully learn something new as well.

It doesn’t mean you’re obligated to stay in harmful conversations. It simply means you lead with understanding rather than dominance.

In online conversations, this can look like:

• Asking genuine questions instead of assuming the worst,

• Refusing to participate in verbal combat designed only to humiliate,

• Disengaging when it’s clear someone isn’t seeking truth—just a win.

II. What Makes a Conversation Unproductive?

Some discussions are unproductive because they’re built on two things:

1. Logical Fallacies:

A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning—something that sounds persuasive but isn’t actually logical, in other words, it doesn’t make sense when isolated from emotion. It’s the emotion that makes it seem relevant, but when objectively examined, it’s not real information. Fallacies confuse, distract, and derail.

Emotion is powerful, but only when intentionally focused. So, when someone comes at you with a logical fallacy, they are trying to derail you from your focus. If you forget what that is, refer back to the beginning of this blog post.

2. Bad-Faith Tactics

A bad-faith argument is made by someone who isn’t actually open to learning or listening. They’re pretending to engage, but their real goal is to dominate, discredit, or derail.

Both are signs that a conversation won’t lead anywhere meaningful. Continuing often just amplifies noise—and leaves you feeling drained. You don’t have time for these bad actors — they just waste your precious time, don’t bother.

Keep reading for scripts on how to engage with them without getting emotionally hooked, perhaps for the benefit of others who are silently watching — which is an opportunity to practice and model positive interaction, but don’t go back and forth more than three times if they don’t start conversing in good faith. In other words, no more than three responses.

III. 6 Common Fallacies (and How to Recognize Them)

These fallacies show up on all sides of the political spectrum. Recognizing them helps you stay grounded and avoid wasting time. I also highly encourage you to not support these fallacies even if they are coming from someone who shares the same ideology as you.

If we want a more peaceful world, we need to practice non-violent language, or language used for truth instead of dominion.

1. Straw Man

Misrepresenting someone’s position so it’s easier to attack.

• “You want universal healthcare? So you’re fine with socialism and government control of everything.”

• “You oppose student loan forgiveness? Must be nice to hate poor people.”

Try instead: Ask what the person actually believes before jumping to conclusions.

2. Ad Hominem

Attacking the person instead of the argument.

“You’re just a typical MAGA nutjob.”

“You liberals don’t understand economics.”

Why it’s unhelpful:

Ad hominem attacks shut down conversation and reveal more about the speaker’s emotional state than the actual issue. It’s essentially schoolyard name-calling—sometimes blunt, sometimes dressed up in condescension. For example:

“Oh, I always thought you were so intelligent. I’m surprised this is your take.”

If a comment is designed to discredit the person or make them feel less sure of themselves, it’s likely an ad hominem.

This can also show up as a more subtle form of disqualification. If someone tells you that you’re incapable of understanding their experience because of who you are—your background, identity, or affiliations—they’re no longer engaging with your ideas. They’re shutting you down.

If they truly wanted to bridge the gap in understanding, they wouldn’t be closing the door like that—at least not intentionally. Of course, some people lash out defensively. That’s a good time to gently bring it back to a more constructive place. You might say:

“I understand that my experience is different from yours—and I’m here to listen, not to override. But shutting me down because of who I am makes dialogue impossible. Can we try to stay curious together instead?”

If they continue to come at you, it’s a sign they aren’t interested in results-driven dialogue. They’re more invested in venting or validating their own feelings. And that’s their right—but it’s not a conversation.

Still, it’s worth reflecting on what gets lost in that kind of emotional reactivity. When we can’t regulate ourselves, we miss the chance to learn, grow, and co-create a better world. When I look at what we could build together—compared to what’s actually happening—I see devastation. And I grieve that gap.

3. Whataboutism

Deflecting criticism by pointing to a different issue. This is also called moving the goalposts because with each pivot, the goal changes. Unless, you love running in circles around a metaphorical soccer field, or is it a football field, hockey? This is fruitless and no fun.

• “You care about climate change, but fly on planes?”

• “You’re mad about this police shooting—what about crime in your city?”

Why it’s unhelpful: It derails the original conversation and avoids accountability.

4. False Dilemma (a.k.a. “Either/Or” Thinking)

Pretending there are only two sides or solutions.

• “You either support this bill, or you don’t care about children.”

• “If you don’t want open borders, you must be xenophobic.”

Try instead: Acknowledge complexity. Most real-world problems don’t have binary answers. Also, binary thinking needs to go, it’s a trap and that will be another blog post some day.

5. Slippery Slope

Assuming one step will lead to extreme, unrelated consequences.

• “If we let people question the vaccine, next they’ll reject all science.”

• “If we regulate guns, we’ll end up like a police state.”

Reality: Change is usually incremental, not instant chaos.

IV. Spotting—and Surviving—Bad-Faith Behavior

Once someone moves from conversation to competition, it’s no longer about understanding. Here are signs of a bad-faith commenter:

• They don’t answer direct questions.

• They escalate quickly to sarcasm, insults, or accusations.

• They demand you defend things you never said.

• They deflect, derail, or change the subject repeatedly.

Your job isn’t to fix them. It’s to decide whether this conversation is worth continuing.

V. How to Avoid Getting Emotionally Hooked

Trolls thrive on emotional engagement. Here’s how to starve the performance:

• Don’t try to change their mind. Respond as if you’re trying to reach someone else, a jury, or a quiet witness lurking in the comment’s section.

• Breathe before you reply. Literally. Count to five.

• Step away if you feel tense. You’re not obligated to prove anything to someone acting in bad faith.

VI. Ready-Made Responses to Common Online Tactics

You can copy these and leave them in your notes app for a quick draw without investing your precious emotional energy. Also, a large language model like Chat GPT is extremely helpful and you can set the tone: loving, sarcastic, flat affect….whatever, just don’t be cruel Elvis, even though, their hearts aren’t true. There is dignity in turning the other cheek.

Insults or Name-Calling

“You’re a snowflake.” / “You’re a fascist.”

Response:

“When insults replace ideas, it’s usually a sign the conversation is over. Take care.”

“Just Asking Questions…” (but not really)

“How do you even know any of this is true?”

Response:

“Happy to talk with someone who’s genuinely curious. If you’re here to dismiss everything, I’ll pass.”

Endless Demands for Sources

“Source? Not that one. Try again.”

Response:

“If no source will satisfy you, this isn’t a real conversation—it’s a moving target.”

Goalpost Shifting

[You answer one question, they bring up something unrelated.]

Response:

“If you’d like to stay on one topic, great. If not, I’ll step back.”

Tone Policing

“You seem angry / too emotional.”

Response:

“Tone isn’t the issue. Let’s focus on the actual point—or we can pause here.”

VII. When to Stay, When to Go

You don’t have to justify your boundaries. Some questions to ask yourself:

• Is this person responding with curiosity—or control?

• Am I feeling more connected to truth—or more reactive and drained?

• Would silence or withdrawal send a clearer message?

VIII. Radical Empathy Isn’t Weakness—It’s Discipline

Practicing empathy in a hostile space is a discipline, not a surrender. You’re not being “nice.” You’re being intentional.

Sometimes empathy means staying in the conversation with calm presence. Sometimes it means stepping away without bitterness. Either way, it’s a refusal to become what the algorithm wants: reactive, tribal, and easily baited.

Leave a pebble of truth, not a scar of conflict.