The anatomy of an online argument— 9 reasons why you shouldn’t indulge

In the 1980s and 90s or the golden pre-internet era, an enemy meant someone you don’t agree with. And you had one or two of those at the most. And it’s probably because of a real disagreement over something critical— like a woman, or property, or some historical disagreement over one or the other thing of value.

The internet was still an amazing place until it was switched on only for porn and other such carnal pleasures. Or maybe messaging a stranger in a chat room. Then came Orkut — this is where hate began to normalize. There were communities of people who together hated something. And then, Facebook took over and ended all civility and sense of decency. And Twitter, ROFL. Let’s not go there. There have been multiple articles, news items, documentaries on how these platforms are dangerous and so on. But this article isn’t about that. Let’s deconstruct what happens in there — specifically in an argument online.

Coming back to the topic of enemies. The word enemy is a loaded word — Iran and Israel. North and South Korea, Gabbar Singh and Thakur Baldev Singh. There is a powerful pull in the statement when I say these entities are enemies of each other. But today, an enemy is someone who thinks Rahul Gandhi makes for a good PM. No sir, such a person is not an enemy — he’s just dim-witted.

I think these are the primary weapons that are used by either parties to sound as stupid as the other party. Here are some things I’ve identified.

1. Whataboutery: To twist Ryan C Thomas’ quote, ‘Whatabboutery is a cruel bitch’. It not only takes away the seriousness of the argument, but also shows that the other person has no defense. It is the easiest tactic to divert the topic. In most cases, there is a need to display empathy — but people simply bend forward, and pull a ‘What about…’ from their ass and think the argument is over. If arguing were a sport, Whataboutery would be a disqualifying move.
2. Fact-free zones: Most online arguments are face-free zones. Not in the ‘there are no facts, just opinions’ sense, but in general, people who argue online are least likely to have a balanced view of anything. That comes from lack of awareness, which in spite of having access to internet is not surprising because internet can only give you information — the onus is on the individual to think through things and verify if the information is true.
3. Countering: We all must agree that internet is a psychological trigger. People get triggered easily. In an argument, while rebutting, people think that countering is an incredible achievement and Amit Shah is going to come and congratulate them for that amazing answer. Countering, or as they call it these days, ‘Thug life’ replying, is just another deviation from the topic. You do not achieve anything except that temporary hard-on, which, when vanishes, you’re left with your original size.
4. Personal Insult: When you don’t have any valid points, one weapon you can use is personal insult. So many times, it happens on twitter that people say something and trolls form a queue to give their creative best — without any relation to the original topic in the tweet. Just calling a person fat, whore, dark, ugly, etc. doesn’t give you anything. I am not against insults — they’re necessary. But context is important. Former Supereme Court Justice Markandeya Katju comes up with the most atrocious (and racist) posts on social media. It is to be noted that there are so many insults in the replies, but hardly any valid counter-argument. Insult is an instinct. It takes the same part of your brain to insult someone as it takes to be funny and spontaneous. Is it funny? Yes, very! You should check out the Telugu Twitter universe. There are legends of this art. But is it ‘arguing’? No. It’s funny but not useful. Also, it’s the wrong response and the wrong tool to use — you’re using a spanner where you need a chisel.
5. Irrelevance: Relevance of the point being made is critical for a sound argument. The other day, I posted about the first presidential debate between Trump and Biden. A gentleman crept into the comments section and said, ‘We don’t have debates in India. All we have is Monkey baat — a monologue.’ Now this is the kind of people we’re dealing with. Everyone knows that we don’t have debates in India. Neither do we have the same electoral system. But they somehow want to make everything about Modi. Okay, you want to hate him, you’re welcome — at least bring about some relevance in your argument!
6. Insipidness: Agreed that not everyone is interesting. And fewer are funny. And way fewer can make coherent arguments. Given these facts, it’s almost impossible to find any flavor in arguments. People make some random comments and don’t even make an effort to be interesting, but want to sound so. I saw an argument where people were discussing GST and one guy posted a lame whatsApp forward screenshot which said GST ka matlab kya hai? Good night, Sweet Dreams, Take care.
7. Anger Management: Online arguments affect health. And some people who need some help themselves, end up getting very angry in the comments section. Rising pulse, elevated blood pressure, palpitations and then, a good old facebook argument — perfect recipe for a nervous breakdown or a heart attack. Right from India Today TV journalist cum street boxer Rajdeep Sardesai, to the ordinary Telugu cinema troll, everyone gets angry very easily. And in that process, end up spewing venom, like hot fire blowing out of their mouths. My question is simple — is it worth it?
8. Abuses: The last resort. Also, the inevitable thing to do after getting angry. The easiest way to lose the argument and gain the false satisfaction of winning it, is by abusing. You just have to reach out to the opponent’s sister, wife, mother, etc., and by doing so, you end up having an emotional release. Social Media makes people angry. News media makes people angrier. News Media on Social Media makes people maniacs. This mania fuels the impatient’s urge and you see huge messes in the form of 200 comments on something that was supposed to be a policy related discussion.
9. Personal Attacks: This is like the absolute last stage of an argument. You cannot do anything beyond personally attacking people when you lose the argument. People in fact go a long distance to prove their point, including but not limited to attacking you personally, trashing your credibility, and demeaning your opinions. This is where the one who keeps calm and walks away wins.

Given the above variables are at play when you enter any discussion online, the safest bet is you stay away from arguments. Because it is abundantly clear that people behave differently when they’re online and in person. You’re better off inviting people to your home — ahem, to a zoom call and have a discussion there. Because your online ID is the animal you most probably are not.

— Deepak Karamungikar (10/6/2020, 8.47 AM EST)