Why is it pointless online argument with morons so addictive?

[Sampiro]

The Limbaugh Slut'n'Prostitute Offensive this week has seen me "debating" people on Facebook left-right-and-center. So many of them are genuine dumbasses, just... witless Kool-Aid slurping morons, and I know that I am not going to change any of their minds, yet I can't walk away.

A definition here: I do not define dumbass or moron as "disagrees with me". Plenty of people disagree with me, they aren't all morons or dumbasses, some are just wrong with a sharp slant towards ignorant.;)

I am referring to people who intelligent and reasonable conservatives would also :rolleyes: at (though may not admit it in the thread) and also consider morons and dumbasses and Kool Aid slurpers.

On the bottom of course are the type who think that making a comment about Obama being a Marxist and an illegal alien is somehow a point won, or who honestly seem to think liberal is a bad word, or who honestly think that "You dont kno whatchur talkin bout" is a win.

Then there are the fanatics who might be intelligent in the walkaround world but who on message boards are as zeaous and impervious to reason as any suicide bomber ever dared be.

Most frustrating are those who are up from them- the ones who write relatively well, seem almost reasonable, but are so brainwashed that they absolutely cannot concede a point even when it is pointed out beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are committing a factual error.

Examples from this week:
-Those who claimed Rush was taken out of context (no, he was not)

-Those who claim Ed Schulz never apologized to Laura Ingraham (which I've actually seen stated on a couple of comments columns, and of course Schulz not only apologized unreservedly to Ingraham but she accepted his apology [what I think caused the confusion with commenters is that Ingraham is now complaining that Obama never called her like he did Fluke])

-Those who claim (also read on several comments) "There's a lot about Fluke that hasn't come to light yet", which is one of those things that makes you forget not everybody knows what "Cite?" means or that little short of Fluke being in fact a known high volume prostitute who has specifically said that she has sex so often that she needs somebody to pay for it would even be remotely relevant. (I don't think they understand the notion of logical fallacies.)

And others I could mention, but this is already too much about the Limbaugh situation when the imho is actually about the phenomena of online "debating" (if you can call it that) itself. It could as easily be Obama's birth certificate or Kirk Camerons' most recent dumbassery or even something completely unrelated to politics or religion (though obviously those are the two where passions and irration most show themselves).

Why is it that so many of us- because I don't think I'm anywhere near to being alone- cannot just walk away from Teh Stupid in such debates? We know fully well that there is no winning because we're fighting the Black Knight- they won't even admit error when it is absolutely clearly demonstrated, they're certainly not going to admit defeat. There's no reward in doing this.

Do you think there's any rational reason for such irrational futility as to continue in such a debate? Is it perhaps insane optimism? Is it some sort of OCD "this has to be put right" reason, or perhaps some hope of collateral good ("well, somebody might be reading who can be swayed from the Death Eaters"), or just an unwillingness to believe such stupid not only exists in large numbers but can learn to type? Any thoughts?


And whatever the ultimate cause, I blame Obama.

[WhyNot]

Well, see, because of Obama, we can't actually engage in this sort of behavior in real life, lest we risk bringing back the duel. But it's a profound monkey brain behavioral need to be right, and to be publicly right (so that when the fruit starts running out, people will like you enough to give you a share.) Thank gods we invented the internet, where we can be right in "public" without risking a sabre to the ribs.

[Silver Tyger]

Is it some sort of OCD "this has to be put right" reason, or perhaps some hope of collateral good ("well, somebody might be reading who can be swayed from the Death Eaters")

These two are my problem. I find if I avoid getting involved at all, it's easier than trying to walk away later.

[Sefton]

It is not. You're completely wrong.

[Trinopus]

I learned long ago: in many cases...just walk away!

If it's an open forum like this one, then I might stick around, hoping to present good arguments for the benefits of lurkers, other readers, people on the fence, etc. If I can make my arguments sensibly and logically, they might have some minor influence on someone other than the moron to whom they are ostensibly addressed.

Also...it's good practice. It's a kind of textbook challenge: here is a really bad argument; what is the best way to respond to it?

But both of these are pretty limited, and, before very long, I just get sick and tired of it all. You can only deal rationally with irrational people for a while. The "tar baby" syndrome: you only end up dirtying yourself.

[Scumpup]

The same reason that, when you have a bad tooth, you keep probing at it with your tongue, even though it hurts to do so.

[ThelmaLou]

I wish the fuck I knew.

[Boyo Jim]

On occasion I get sucked into it -- the Joe Paternno thread here is was one example. I think it happens most often when the answer is so completely obvious to me that I can't believe the other person doesn't get it maybe because I'm not clearly communicating it. So I try saying it a dozen different ways.

Eventually I give up. If I didn't, it would be kind of like poking at an animal in a cage with a stick.

[MsWhatsit]

In my case, it's because I have this nagging fear that if I don't constantly challenge people's publicly-spouted ignorance and stupidity, then other people might read it and believe it.

It is a horrible compulsion and one I honestly wish I could stop. My Facebook inbox is full of messages to friends saying, "Er, sorry about picking on your friend in that Limbaugh thread..." or whatever. (Though actually most of the responses are something along the lines of, "Oh, that guy? He's an ass I knew from high school and I should probably defriend him anyway. Have at.")

[Stelios]

Slapping idiots around is fun. The more dumb, the more fun. That's pretty much all there is to it, as far as I can tell.

[Little Nemo]

They understand how this game is played. Ignore the facts and stick with your story. Most people will never bother to learn the facts so the story will come to define what happened.

[Senegoid]

Slapping idiots around is fun. The more dumb, the more fun. That's pretty much all there is to it, as far as I can tell.

How's it so fun when they are so obviously impervious?

What I think may be going on is the Adrenalin Rush you get from the Recreational Outrage. I think we all understand and Adrenalin Rushes from whatever source can be addictive. (ETA: From sampiro's OP, I think that's what is going on with him.)

OMG. Did I just say you get a Rush?

[TokyoBayer]

OK, someone had to post this (http://xkcd.com/386/), so it might as well be me.

This is one reason I've given up talking to a few friends and relatives. Stupidly repeating talking point in the face of insurmountable evidence gets old.

I actually enjoy dialectic discussions with intelligent people on the other side of an argument. I've got a good friend who is a Catholic attorney. I'm atheist and a former Mormon, and we've both had to refine and polish our arguments, although it doesn't seem that we've gotten any more convincing, at least we're both shaking out the intellectual dust.

Gave courage, walk away.

[Malden Capell]

God, I have this problem too. The problem is the moment you walk away, your fear you're admitting defeat in their eyes: so that they will go 'he's not replied, he must have been persuaded! So I'm right!'

It's difficult to let that slide!

[Slithy Tove]

One of the better essays on Cracked.com adressed this, including the observation that We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win" (http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html)

[PandaBear77]

Because you have nothing better to do at that particular moment.

[shiftless]

Because you almost had them with your last post. One more post to drive home your point and they will have to admit defeat. You will have validated your point, your way of thinking and perhaps even your whole life up to this point. Unfortunately, they are thinking the same thing.

[Zsofia]

I think it's the same reason sometimes (like last night) I end up "arguing" (really speechifying) about issues like that to somebody who completely agrees - you have to get it out and it feels good.

[Rachellelogram]

I used to participate in flamewars with idiots before my frontal cortex finished developing. I was even, on occasion, an idiot myself. I've learned that I cannot be trusted with debate, though, so I stopped reading those threads.

[beowulff]

It is not. You're completely wrong.

Here - let me fix that for you:

"It is not. Your completely wrong."

[Irishman]

And others I could mention, but this is already too much about the Limbaugh situation when the imho is actually about the phenomena of online "debating" (if you can call it that) itself. It could as easily be Obama's birth certificate or Kirk Camerons' most recent dumbassery or even something completely unrelated to politics or religion (though obviously those are the two where passions and irration most show themselves).

Just check out the 2 cars physics thread for an example.

[Shodan]

"Having the other clown admit it" is not a necessary part of winning an argument. Just the opposite, sometimes - it is often easier to come up with the perfect one-liner when you don't have to worry about being factually refuted.

Some debaters are the equivalent of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Having them look at the gaping hole you just carved in their argument and hearing them mutter "It's only a flesh wound" is as amusing as the frank admission of defeat, sometimes.

Regards,
Shodan

[Yllaria]

OK, someone had to post this (http://xkcd.com/386/), so it might as well be me. . .

Yes. It had to be done.

Sometimes this image (http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/blogs-prod-photos/d/a/1/a/3/da1a3c9af65b85ecac4f1a1b8cf82267.jpg?stmp=1294334449)helps me walk away or stay out of it. That's probably a copy of a copy, instead of the original. Unfortunately, I don't have a link to the original.

[Jackmannii]

Some debaters are the equivalent of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Having them look at the gaping hole you just carved in their argument and hearing them mutter "It's only a flesh wound" is as amusing as the frank admission of defeat, sometimes.I think my personal favorite is the person who can't admit they were shellacked in an online argument, and decides to cover their retreat by mentioning all the valuable, society-serving tasks they must get to while you are wasting time on the Internet.

Example - the long debate on health quackery I got into years ago in another forum, involving voluminous, link and quote-filled posts on both sides. My opponent's final, devastating comeback was "You sure must have a lot of time on your hands." :D

The real dumbasses are the people I find it easiest to walk away from. What's harder to let go are people who have a degree of intelligence but who twist, distort and lie about facts and solid reasoning (including yours) and manage to be such assholes that it's difficult to avoid slapping them down one more time. And another. And another...

[MsWhatsit]

I think my personal favorite is the person who can't admit they were shellacked in an online argument, and decides to cover their retreat by mentioning all the valuable, society-serving tasks they must get to while you are wasting time on the Internet.

Urgh. Yes. Someone who happens to be a volunteer firefighter in his spare time (which, good for him and all, really) recently led off his rebuttal post with "Now that I am back from saving people's lives..."

OK, that's great, but what does it have to do with the topic under discussion?

[Illuminatiprimus]

One of the better essays on Cracked.com adressed this, including the observation that We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win" (http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html)Damn, someone beat me to it. :)

I tend not to get drawn into protracted arguments with people, either in real life or online, but definitely less so online. I did that recently here in the pit and was swiftly reminded why I don't get spend time in that forum - it was quickly a rude, accusatory mess for everyone, and the complete opposite of what I enjoy spending my time on.

There's very little I care that much enough about that I really want to argue about it (as opposed to discuss, which is different) and moreover I generally don't have a high enough opinion of words on a screen (which is what anyone on the net I don't actually know personally is) to feel I need to convince them of anything. Why does it matter if they think something that I'm clear is logically incorrect, or factually wrong? Why does it matter if they themselves are too stupid or ignorant to form an argument? More importantly, will spending hours of my time talking to them online change that? How do I know that the person I'm talking to even believes what they're saying and is not a troll?

Whilst there have been discussions I've had online where I've been convinced my position isn't correct on something, or has (in the longer term) presented me with information that has caused me to review my opinions on things, I can't actually think off the top of my head where I've been part of a debate where someone has said "you know what? Your logic and well-reasoned argument have changed my mind". I'd rather invest my time talking to people I know about things we don't agree on because at least there you have some feedback and know that the person you're talking to is doing so genuinely, and I know they're not morons too.

So in short, I don't understand why anyone feels the need to argue with idiots - as soon as I suspect I'm talking to someone who is grossly uninformed (deliberately or not), stupid, irrational or a troll, I disengage from it rather than waste precious energy on a futile exercise. It's why you won't catch me talking to anyone in the youtube comments section :D

[SciFiSam]

I think sometimes it's just because arguing - heated debates without personal insults - is fun for the sake of it, and if you haven't got enough good ones going then you let yourself get sucked into the bad ones. Even if they're people you know you'd never debate this with in real life, because either they're drooling into their liquor-soaked bristle or they're strutting around hoping someone will notice their Porsche key-ring.

Or sometimes it's because they're someone who's not always an arsehole. Then either you might think you can change their opinions by the awesome power of your wordage, or you don't want to back down in a way that seems rude.

IME, backing down in that kind of argument by saying 'fine, let's agree to disagree. So, how about them Yankees?' or something similar works about 50% of the time in that you can still carry on talking about them Yankees and don't hold the previous argument against each other - much.

The other 50% of the time, it's hard not to be drawn back in.

I actually readthe entire Sandusky thread up till about three weeks ago. I didn't post because I had nothing to add. It was not a factually informative thread like some others I might just read. But for some reason I liked seeing the back-and-forth between all posters and a couple of posters then all posters and Starving Artist. It was kinda like one of those plays you get sometimes where there's no set or props, just people talking. There was even a death!

There's a line that I repeat to myself now and then. I either read it somewhere or thought it up myself:

Remember, if you're arguing with someone who is clearly a moron, the best result is that you win an argument with a moron.

[The Second Stone]

I keep my elite idiocy here on the SDMB and DU. I can't imagine the level of dumb at facebook. It must be painful.

Anyway, never argue with idiots. Those watching can't tell the difference. One wishes to help the unenlightened face reality, but it is like pushing rope uphill underwater. I blame "that man".

[Sampiro]

I keep my elite idiocy here on the SDMB and DU. I can't imagine the level of dumb at facebook. It must be painful.



[Jeremy Irons]Oh, you've no idea...[/Jeremy Irons]


I'm currently in mourning for a dog. (Those who haven't had 'long-term pets' especially may see that as glib, those who have know 'it's mourning, as real as if it were for a human you loved'.) I'll admit that the Limbaugh thing has helped me this week because it gets me furious and the nice thing about angry is it takes you out of sadness. The bad thing is I've been using .42 hollow points to crush fleas, figuring "If I can't make them admit they're wrong I can at least make them suicidal".

BUT, I can't imagine that many people had dogs die this week, but everywhere the hostility is just ridiculous. If Facebook were a physical place there'd be street fights breaking out.

[The Second Stone]

I'm sorry for your loss. A long term pet is like a family member that never says an unkind word to you and dances every time you come home.

[thelabdude]

Good point originally. I wish I had the force of character to spend even less time on the religious and political questions here.

[The Second Stone]

Hey, I just realized the OP wrote "pointless online argument", a rare triple oxymoron.