I don’t know about the “no real life effects”. As a teenager, I was dangerously close to falling down a conspiracy theorist rabbit hole, back then with 9/11-“truthers”. It was online arguments I witnessed, where their arguments got dismantled by people knowing what they are talking about, that got me out of there before I got in too deep.
Similarily, loneliness once got me adjacent to the proto-“manosphere” before it was a thing as it is today. But arguing with them about how they are wrong about womens’ roles historically, claiming they were “privileged” in ways they objectively weren’t turned me off of their bullshit really quickly.
I know arguing online has become more exhausting ever since, but I think there might be a bit of an overly dismissive reaction present with a lot of people on the internet. Developing your own ideas against opposition is still something worthwhile in many cases. And online, there’s usually at least some kind of audience, that gets influenced by discussions - for better or worse.
That being said, I may be overthinking things. Because any discussion, where your goal is “totally destroying the opponent” is usually in the category of least worthwhile discussions to have.
This is how I think of it. I’m not arguing on the Internet to change the person’s mind. I’m arguing to make sure anyone reading the thread in the future doesn’t come away with the impression that the other person’s argument is flawless.
I’m happy to end an argument by just repeating the facts that the other person is getting wrong. I know their mind isn’t getting changed but I hope that anyone that comes along later will be able to read the thread and clearly understand the logical disconnect the other person’s argument has.
Especially arguing against someone in certain subcultures like the manosphere, yeesh. Their arguments are so subjective and centered around feelings that often all you can do is point that out and hope someone who comes along later sees that their arguments really make no sense.
deleted by creator
I feel like you must have said something dumb online, and gotten absolutely dogpiled for it, to draw this comic.
So it turns out that the years I spent arguing all over the internet were the most useful years ever for AI training data.
Before me, there was practically no information on the internet, and it’s mostly lost to time.
After me, the well has been poisoned with AIs masquerading as humans.
So I can rest assured that when you see an AI arguing about some pointless nonsense… that’s a little bit of me. I am an immortal spirit of pedantry.
Yet another engagement title from you I see.
It means internet arguing is stupid and pointless and will do the exact opposite of making you feel satisfied or accomplished.
Nobody has ever had their opinions and beliefs changed from arguing on the internet, or if they have, they will never talk about it, so there’s no results you can track from it, no outcome, no closure. Arguing on the internet means getting heated for no reason and with no payoff.
Most of the people who say the stupidest shit are just children anyway, but for some reason we’ve made it socially acceptable to argue with, and take the opinions of literal CHILDREN as seriously as if it’s people writing policy.
