"DARVO" maybe?
DARVO (an acronym for "Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender") is a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing, such as abusers or sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior.[1]
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
50 points (98.1% liked)
No Stupid Questions
43689 readers
706 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ad hominem fallacy. The person who has been exposed for various things, instead of trying to refute the argument of the accuser (e.g. "they're misrepresenting the facts", "I couldn't have done that here's an alibi")
... they just make their own accusations to make others mistrust their accuser. All of the examples you listed were ad hominem attacks against your friend.
The Republican way
"Whataboutism." Firefox flags the word as misspelled, but it's just a new word and if you search it, you'll find a lot of articles. It's a controversial debate tactic in which you attempt to shift the focus from something you want to protect (or yourself) to something the other person wants to protect (or themselves).
A good example of this is when we say "Trump is in the Epstein files" and people on the right say "well so is Bill Clinton." Except the left really doesn't want to protect Slick Willy (or any child predator, for that matter) so it's not a good whataboutism. Normally you would point to something good he's done, but I can't come up with any examples.
That would be a slightly different scenario. Here we have the accuser and the accused. Then the accused discredits the accuser by bringing in unrelated facts. As another commenter said, it’s an ad hominem attack. Whataboutism would be, in this context, answering “but Trump/Clinton/Julius Cesar did it too” implying (so it’s not that bad, they are worse than me)
Spite
Retaliation
Stalker??
Conservatism
Revenge?
Running a smear campaign?
Being a psycho asshole?
A friend of mine once described this kind of behaviour as acting like "welfare moms." While there's a certain level of sexism there that I am sure she really didn't mean in the moment, I get the point she was making: parents who sit at home scheming up the next excuse to call social services on that other parent that they pretend to like but also keep an air of superiority about. And that's all it is. Convincing yourself that you're better than everyone else not by lifting yourself up, but by tearing others down.
It's commen behaviour in narcissists, too. Contrary to popular belief, narcissism is often found in people with low self-esteem. They try to validate themselves by bringing everyone else down below them. It seems like obsession with another person outwardly, but it's still self-obsession: "this person made me look bad, but they're so much worse than me. I need to prove it (even to myself)."