Anatomy of an internet argument

The key is to not try and convince the person about the issue at hand, but instead add to their toolbox methods for finding out things themselves. Introducing ideas like the importance of thinking of information chain of custody to avoid games of telephone, considering sampling bias and the importance of context.

"Bad arguments take 1 unit of effort to generate and 1000 to refute. If you don't have a strategy for handling that asymmetry"

Hitchen's Razor is a great defense for these amplified DoS attacks:

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

I still contend that the "yo momma's butt is flat" defense against flat earth claims is the Game Theory Optimal play

A war that can be avoided by clicking an X. No don't fight it!

Back in my Reddit days, I learned it was also hard to have an honest discussion because people are suspicious of your motives. I would comment something like "I'd like to understand more about why you think X," and ask for clarification. These were met either with radio silence or very caged answers that just reiterated their point instead of explaining it further. IRL, people tend to become extremely guarded when someone questions their statements or beliefs (guilty, myself) because they automatically assume the person asking is trying to change their mind as opposed to make an effort to understand them.

In the end, I think everyone just wants to feel heard. It's difficult to remember that sometimes online, easy to forget there is a person behind the keyboard who came to think differently because of their experiences and exposures.

what I've noticed is that many arguments have little to do with you, the "opponent", or the topic argued about or even which of you is right.

it's more about the arguer re-enforcing their beliefs of being correct, and therefore morally righteous and powerful, to themselves. If you can argue your point successfully or at least cause your opponent to secede or give up and ragequit or block you, you won, because it isn't about correctness but power to remove or eliminate their influence from the argument, and if taken to the farthest conclusion, society at large.

you begin noticing that all these conversations are about power over the opponent and if they could humiliate them enough- either with numbers by ratioing them with chatgpt bot replies or reddit downvotes or whatever- they will be silenced and you can pretend it was your power that did it.

It reminds me of catcalling on the street. The guy catcalling a girl knows very well they won't turn her on, she isn't going to be receptive, she isn't going to fuck him. She might just shoot him an angry look. But it doesn't matter because that wasn't the goal, the goal was to get a temporary sexual power trip- you just made that girl think about you against her will!! you were powerful enough to occupy her mind for that moment. You win!

you also see it in the sort of cultish thinking of all kinds of ideological things like wild flat earthers or MRAs or pickup artists or pizzagaters or whatever stupid shit. It's never about the thing they say they're all about, they don't really care about the earth being flat, or men's rights, or manipulating girls, or child abuse- they care about feeling like heroes to themselves and their peers- culturally righteous and powerful.