If you're reading this article, it's a pretty safe bet that you know something about the Internet, or are, at least, able to use it. And if you can use it, you've no doubt noticed by now that most of the people on the Internet are miserable idiots whose opinions need to be refuted. Sure, there are some good ones out there, but they are few and far between, and in no way make up for the drooling morons who spend days arguing the question of which album Metallica jumped the shark at (if they ever even did), or whether
Veronica Mars is better or worse than it should be.
Anyway, they're out there, and they need to be put in their place. What can you do? How can you, just one little man (or woman, I guess; likely a man), make a difference?
The answer is: you can't. For the five people who are still muddling along in the dark, the title of this editorial is a reference to the well-known maxim that "arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded." The substance of this particular sweeping opinion is that most of the subjects about which one might be wont to argue on the Internet are of no special importance, and the manner in which these arguments take place is juvenile at best. There's a tremendous "so what" factor to the whole affair.
Worse still, from the perspective of an earnest soul, is the fact that even if you argue well and with charity aforethought, the likelihood of you actually convincing a single person of your position is pretty damn slim. Why is this, exactly?
Most of the people on the Internet really are idiotsI don't say this lightly, though I wish I did. If you've read the replies to any popular Shoutwire article, you will have noticed that many of them are poorly-spelled, poorly-considered pseudo-sentences that may as well have never been said. Some of them are just simple, which is fine, but many seem to bleed with the implication that the poster has not actually read the material to which he's responding, and doesn't consider this an impediment to meaningful comment on his part. They're spam, basically, and it can make you tired just to see them. That said, however, it would not be right to be too hard on such people, because:
The Internet is not Serious Stuff©When all is said and done, the Internet lacks the substance of a book, or a newspaper, or even of television. There's no bulk to it; no weight. It's made up of too many particles (blog entries, message board posts, etc.) to be really solid, and it suffers for this. Look at the front page of Shoutwire any given day, and you'll see people pouring out bile about the Heavy Hand of Israel or 9/11 Truth. To hear the Internet tell it, there are no two subjects in this country that are of more absorbing interest, nor any two subjects the shameful truth of which could be any more apparent. And yet, in spite of this, the public consciousness is still as vaguely pro-Israel as ever it was, and remains skeptical - even scornful - of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Most of the people in the real world have never even heard of
Loose Change, but, if one were to judge by the Internet, they'd hardly be likely to have heard about anything else.
The point is that the Internet is a place of ephemeral fads. We've all seen the latest YTMND meme or viral video; we'll all have forgotten about them by next week, too. There will be no "Forum Post that Changes the World" like many books - or even movies - have changed the world. The Net is too insular and specific to reach everybody the way it's theoretically supposed to.
So why argue? Well, as with many things, largely because it can be fun. The same universal frivolity and vulgarity that have ruined the Internet as a venue for serious discussion have also made it a prime place for light-hearted, sass-minded discussions of all manner of things. For those among you who don't care if you convince somebody of your position, and would rather get in a good burn than change someone's mind, the Internet is simply without equal.
Another reason to argue, though, is to take the starch out of those rare stuffed shirts who really do believe that the Internet is Serious Stuff©. You know who I'm talking about. They report your posts on message boards for the slightest infraction. They give out warnings themselves when mods don't come swiftly to their aid. They get worked up over the implications of emoticons, declare themselves to be personally aggrieved by arguments directed against them, and (sometimes) sign their posts as if they've just written you a formal letter. They must be stopped.
The main reason to argue over the Internet, however, has little to do with the subjects argued, or even with the people you're arguing with, and everything to do with you.
Samuel Johnson put it best (in 1753!):
"To fix the thoughts by writing, and subject them to frequent examinations and reviews, is the best method of enabling the mind to detect its own sophisms, and keep it on guard against the fallacies which it practises on others: in conversation we naturally diffuse our thoughts, and in writing we contract them; method is the excellence of writing, and unconstraint the grace of conversation."
To put that plainly, arguing with people over the Internet tightens your own thoughts and writing style, and can show you places where you need to improve your technique. You'll never become the world's greatest lover by masturbating all the time, after all. Eventually you just have to get out there.
The next three parts of this series will deal with topics of import to those who would argue with people in various Internet venues. Much of the material will be geared towards those who want to have fun without being idiots, and against those (like the stuffed shirts I mentioned above) who want to be idiots without having fun. Stay tuned, then, in the coming week.
Pt.1 - IntroductionPt.2 - Making the most of message boards
Pt.3 - How to troll -and- how to not get trolled
Pt.4 - Miscellany and conclusion