Suppose A launches a vicious verbal attack on B. B will be tempted to respond in kind, but ought to give some thought to the point of so doing. For even if B does not escalate the attack, but merely throws back what was thrown at him, the attacker may well feel justified in having made his initial assault. He will be tempted to rationalize his behavior as follows:

You see what a worthless fellow B is? How dare he call me names! I'm glad I attacked him; he deserved it. In fact, I attacked him just to expose him, just to show what nastiness he is capable of.

Given the likelihood of such perverse self-justification on A's part, B is wise not to respond at all, but to view matters with Olympian detachment. If B cannot be harmed materially by A's attacks, then he wastes time, energy, and peace of mind by responding to them. What others think of us is of no consequence except insofar as it translates or is likely to translate into actions physically harmful to us. For those who have imbibed and implemented the Stoic wisdom, it is surely true that

Sticks and stones can break my bones
But words can never hurt me.

A prime exception, however, is the politician. Someone whose livelihood and efficacy depend on being favorably perceived must counter assaults and slanders. If he does not, they may stick to him. The politician is a slave to public opinion. Therein lies one of the reasons for the inferiority of the political to the philosophical life, a reason appreciated early on in our tradition by Aristotle and recorded in the Nicomachean Ethics.