Why is it pointless online argument with morons so addictive?

In My Humble Opinion
1

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.:wink:

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.

2

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.

3

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

4

It is not. You’re completely wrong.

5

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.

6

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.

7

I wish the fuck I knew.

8

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.

9

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.”)

10

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.

11

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.

12

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?

13

OK, someone had to post this, 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.

14

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!

15

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”

16

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

17

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.

18

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.

19

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.

20

Here - let me fix that for you:

“It is not. Your completely wrong.”