Anatomy of an internet argument

The second example is just a guy moving the goalpost, he went from "Where's the money?" to "Ok, that's where the money is, but are they using it?", and then gets mad when someone answered with sources. But according to the author KJ completely misunderstood the goalposts.

Rhetoric, dialectic, sophistry, trolling, slap fights, agitprop.

To the OC's point, while the affordances of hot mediums like social media and message boards tend towards juicing dopamine, with some investment they can also be used for discourse. As OC Defender advocates. As moderators like u/dang facilitate.

--

My meager "yes and" contributions to Defender's post are...

> how to make the world a better place

Since at least Socrates, humans have been arguing about what it means to be a good person, how to live a good life, what is true and beautiful. aka moral philosophy. I praise and appreciate Defender for continuing this distinctly human tradition.

> This shows a genuine interest in understanding because it cannot be faked.

TMI: Maybe 6-7 years ago, I heard the advice

  "When something (or someone) doesn't make sense to you, get curious." 

> Yes, this is a lot of work.

True.

--

PS: affordances in the Donald Norman sense; hot/cold mediums in the Marshall McLuhan sense.

My takeaway from your comment is not so much that we need to change the way we discuss, but that we more regularly need to remind ourselves that computers and people are not the same thing. As you suggest, when people have discussions it usually goes well, with all parties more or less wanting "boring" discussion that goes somewhere meaningful. It is when people have discussions with computers but confuse them as being people when it all goes off the rails.

"Pick your battles" is another phrasing of it.

As I've gotten older, I've come to realise that there are people (including offline, including close friends and/or family) with whom discussions simply turn into arguments ... and there's no logic that will prevail.

Increasingly I set boundaries, both for myself, and with those others. I've also realised that some things don't need to be arguments. I'll state my terms, request, proposal, plans, whatever (and even that only if necessary or plausibly considerate), and if there's some antagonistic response ... I ignore it.

If the person actively thwarts my doing something (often to help them, and why people get so combative about assistance I can't even begin to understand...), I'll simply lay down tools. "You don't want me to do X ..." or "You're going to make it more unpleasant / inconvenient for me to do X ... then you can do it yourself."

It's much easier to do this if you can walk (or otherwise) get away. A space you can control (walls, locking doors, or exit from location) helps tremendously.

Some of this transfers to online discussion. Mostly I communicate to share my own knowledge/experience, or to try to understand others. Rarely to convince. Occasionally to refute or show the inherent paradox or inconsistency of a statement, though that's usually aimed at other readers.

(The lurking audience is almost always far larger than the participating one.)

Exactly.

Correia’s Law: "Internet arguing is a spectator sport. You argue to convince the undecided and give ammo to those on your side. Do not expect to change your opponent’s mind as you cannot sway the willfully ignorant. Internet arguing is only worth it when there is an audience. The contestants do not get a vote, the audience decides who wins."