A user receives a provocation and fears that silence will be read as defeat. I propose that we assess which response best protects time, dignity, and security.
In the example, blocking, reporting, or retaining a proof may be more useful than continuing the exchange. Not every public confrontation requires a reply.
If threats emerge, appropriate interlocutors need to be involved. The choice to interrupt shows no inability to argue: it can recognize that a minimum condition of dialogue is lacking.