Online arguments create a perfect storm: audience effect (performing for the crowd), permanent records (admitting you’re wrong leaves evidence forever), and identity trap (your position becomes part of who you are).
We don’t engage with the strongest version of opposing views. We battle simplified strawmen, each victory making us more confident while understanding less.
It’s the Dunning-Kruger death spiral.
I generally stopped arguing over the internet ages ago. Because, yeah - after I while it got just too tiresome with too little effect. It really was mostly performative for anyone involved. That’s also why I generally dislike public debates (not that they aren’t important or needed!), but in the internet it is amplified with so much more noise.
Nowadays I try to contribute to the internet discussions only when I have something helpful to add. Or to just make someones day better in some way. Someone picks a fight with me? I quickly just ignore it.
Now, face to face, private discussions? Bring it on. But then it turns out that the direct communication, seeing each other face, a general easy access to empathy and a natural tendency to deeascalate (at least that’s what I mostly experienced) makes such arguments often quite constructive.
I think the hard part of course is when folks go looking for a fight.
I am definitely guilty of (still!) trolling back when I get trolled.
One day, I’ll evolve beyond replying to the replyoors.
One day.