How to Argue Online

I am just making this up as I go along, but here are a few guiding principles that I try to adhere to.

1. The only thing that matters is the truth

Everything else is secondary. I am open to being wrong and I take valid corrections seriously. Even if everyone is against me, I will keep telling the truth. I hope that one day others will be brave enough to follow.

2. Have fun

This one is important. If I’m not having fun, I log off. I go outside and touch grass, as they say. If I read something that makes me emotional — especially if it makes me angry, I figure out why before responding. It’s important to know whether I’m angry because they’re arrogantly wrong, or because they’re right and I don’t want to admit it.

3. Make your point simply and clearly

I am not trying to use the most impressive SAT words. I know that using words I barely understand will muddy the point. I know it won’t impress anyone or make them think I’m smarter than I really am. I find it more useful to include charts and data from reliable sources. I appreciate and share when friends and followers make good points — no need to reinvent the wheel.

4. Don’t worry about the ratio

It’s human to experience a visceral dread or even panic when so many others disagree with you. From an evolutionary biology standpoint, it makes sense that we fear rejection. On the savannah, ejection could result in ejection from the tribe and subsequently, death.

On social media, the valence of the emotion (positive or negative) doesn’t matter. An interaction is an interaction. My posts with the most interactions (tens of millions of views) are the unpopular ones where I’ve been resoundingly ratio’d. It’s fine. I think of myself as Voldemort: the more they say my name (whether they like me or not), the more powerful I become.

5. Determine who is a waste of time, liberally mute and/or block them

Sometimes, they are earnest and simply aren’t bright enough to know that they’re parroting empty rhetoric. I make an example of them by posting their comment with specific questions that expose the shallowness of their position:

Sometimes, they’re malicious, goading you to respond emotionally and say something you can’t defend. I don’t respond, I just block them.

6. Ignore poorly formed arguments

It may feel satisfying to clown on someone who makes a bad or malformed argument. But this is a waste of time, similar to constructing straw men and knocking them down. I’ll address it only if it’s a common argument that appears to be convincing others. For example, the following is nonsense and should be ignored:

7. Argue with your peers or better

I find that I get more out of the discussion when I identify interlocutors who on a similar level as me and engage seriously only with them. The rest, I like to have fun with. The thing about people who are too far down the IQ scale is that they can’t identify where they are on the scale, and can’t tell their position relative to you either. They take “all men were created equal” as a fact of nature despite all evidence to the contrary. They will be a waste of your time — like trying to teach differential equations to a dog.

8. Don’t overstate your case

The facts as they exist are powerful. Overstating your case undermines what may be a valid argument and makes it easy to dismiss. Instead of saying “All x are criminals,” “x commit violent crimes at a higher rate than any other group” is better and more precise.

9. Do not make ad hominem attacks!

I don’t believe in denigrating someone instead of addressing their point. It may feel satisfying or well-deserved, but it detracts from the actual argument. Making observations about their actions or arguments is fine (e.g. “you should be ashamed at your demonstrated lack of understanding”), but often a waste of time. I avoid name calling (e.g. “you are stupid, racist, fascist, anti-black” etc.)

10. Don’t respond to ad hominem attacks

If the bulk of your critics only respond with ad hominem attacks (e.g., “You’re a racist!”) you’ve already won the argument. Take it as their concession that they can’t argue using facts, logic and data. They’re hoping the appeal to emotion will convince others who agree with you to keep quiet. Others who are still sensitive to name-calling: normies. It’s pointless to respond because your response won’t convince anyone.

Sometimes I’ll gather a handful of screenshots and issue a meta-response like “Those who disagree with me can’t address my points, so they attack me personally.” Or if they are egregiously wrong and I might entertain my followers by pointing out their mistakes.

Audience participation

I’ve had several followers ask me in the past week: “What are your goals?”

I’d love to put that question to you. What do you think my goals should be? What would you like to see more of?