Image Description: A conceptual graphic depicting a circular maze in shades of purple and black on a green background. At the center of the maze stands a shadowy figure, illuminated by a spotlight, symbolizing entrapment. Surrounding the maze are phrases like “Prove it,” “You’re wrong,” and “Defend yourself,” evoking the feeling of circular logic and no-win arguments. At the base of the maze, the words “Kafka Trap” are written, highlighting the theme of the image. The overall tone is both intellectual and slightly eerie, emphasizing the complexity and frustration of such rhetorical traps.


Have you ever found yourself in a conversation where no matter how you respond, you’re somehow “proving” the other person’s point? It feels like being stuck in a rhetorical maze with no way out, and every turn you take seems to reinforce their argument against you. This kind of interaction is known as a Kafka trap, named after Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial, where the protagonist is accused of a crime but is never told the specifics of what he did wrong. His every attempt to defend himself is twisted into further evidence of guilt.

As Autistic people navigating online conversations, it’s essential to recognize when you’re being pulled into a Kafka trap. Recently, I found myself in one such situation on LinkedIn. The experience left me exhausted, but it also sharpened my ability to spot this manipulative tactic and disengage from it effectively.

The Kafka Trap in Action

In this particular conversation, someone claimed that Autistic people shouldn’t communicate in writing because it gets “heated and messy.” She framed this as a sweeping generalization, rooted in her personal experience. From the start, the setup was problematic: if I agreed, I’d validate the harmful generalization about Autistic communication. If I disagreed, no matter how politely, my disagreement could be framed as “proof” of how messy and heated written communication with Autistic people can become—justifying their point.

This is the essence of the Kafka trap: no matter what you say or do, your response is used as evidence against you.

Spotting the Signs of a Kafka Trap

Here are a few red flags to help you identify a Kafka trap:

Generalized Claims Without Nuance

Look for sweeping statements that lump together diverse groups of people (e.g., “All Autistic people are X”). These claims are often built on anecdotal evidence and presented as universal truths. As the saying goes: if you’ve met one Autistic, you’ve met one Autistic.

Circular Logic

In a Kafka trap, the argument circles back on itself. Any attempt to refute the claim is reframed as supporting evidence. For example, if you defend yourself, they might say, “See? This defensiveness proves my point!”

Shifting the Goalposts

When challenged, the person may subtly change the argument. I like to call these tactics “slippery soap” because it feels like I’m standing on wet soap that keeps shooting out from under me.

In this case, the original claim about how people should always communicate with Autistic people shifted to a focus on her own needs as an ADHD person, accusing us of demanding she accommodate our communication style at the expense of hers (a completely different conversation than the one we were having one second earlier!)

And when I pointed out that I also have ADHD, she moved the goalposts again. More slippery soap. I give up pretty quickly on slippery soap conversations these days because I just don’t have the energy for pointless games of intellectual tag.

Emotional Triggers

Kafka traps often rely on eliciting emotional reactions, like frustration or defensiveness, which can then be used to discredit you.

How to Avoid the Kafka Trap:

Recognize the Pattern

The sooner you spot the no-win logic, the better. Take a step back and assess whether the conversation is genuinely open to dialogue or if it’s designed to entrap you.

Name It

If it feels safe to do so, call out the Kafka trap. By naming the tactic, you disrupt its power. In my LinkedIn conversation, I posted a public warning for others, explaining how the trap worked and why engaging further was futile.

Don’t Take the Bait

Resist the urge to argue within their framework. Instead, challenge the premise of their claim or disengage entirely. For example, you could say, “This conversation doesn’t seem productive, so I’m stepping away.”

Set Boundaries

If the interaction feels toxic or draining, prioritize your mental health and personal energy. It’s okay to block or mute someone who’s arguing in bad faith. That’s what I eventually did, and it was liberating.

Lean on Community

Talk to trusted friends or allies who can help you process the situation. In my case, a brilliant friend pointed out the Kafka trap, giving me the clarity I needed to respond effectively.

Why This Matters for Autistic People

As Autistic folks, we often face unfair assumptions and stereotypes about how we communicate or interact. Kafka traps exploit these stereotypes, making us feel like we have to defend our very existence or methods of communication. This is emotionally exhausting and ultimately unproductive.

By learning to recognize Kafka traps, we can protect our energy and focus on meaningful conversations with people who engage in good faith. Not every argument deserves our time or emotional labor, especially when the deck is stacked against us from the start.

Final Thoughts

If you find yourself in a Kafka trap, remember: you don’t owe anyone a response that validates their harmful framework. Your time and energy are valuable, and walking away from a no-win situation is not a loss—it’s a victory.

The next time someone tries to bait you into this kind of argument, recognize it, name it, and reclaim your peace. Let’s save our energy for building connections and communities that truly value and respect us.

Have you encountered Kafka traps in your conversations? Share your experiences in the comments—I’d love to hear how you navigated them.