In my 10 years doing blogging and reviewing discourse, I’ve noticed a pattern in long standing arguments online. Mainly, most persistent dialectics always follow the same form:

Side A starts with Argument A1, then Side B replies with Counter-argument B1, only to be confronted by a counter-counter argument A2 to which they retort with their own reply, B2.

The dialectic keeps going like this (A3 vs B3 followed by A4 vs B4 etc etc) until we get to something like A15 vs B15 and then something changes. One side (usually the side who started the argument so let’s call it side A) doesn’t like the implicit frame created by argument A15 vs B15 and therefore decides to blow up the conversation, either by reframing, trivializing the controversy, or otherwise creating an emotional dynamic that forces everyone to quit.

This implicitly restarts the internet’s perception of the problem, a “chat bot reset” where everyone watching walks away thinking “it’s complicated”. Invariably, when the conversation starts up again, people never start the new argument with A15 vs B15, they argue A1 vs B1, which is what side A likes doing. This circular dynamic is ideal for feeding an audience endless content, but never accomplishes anything because it steps around the crux that only develops later in the conversation.

Example here would be Paganism v Christianity on Substack. The controversy always starts with the accusation/question:

A1/B1 - “Why are modern Christians so weak and is this weakness destroying Western civilization?”

But invariably this dialectic leads, through many stages, to a more productive and advanced question:

A9/B9- “So what do pagans actually believe and how does this lead to the ethical behavior necessary for civilization?”

Pagans love the first (superficial) question and hate the last (critical) one, so they reset the chatbot and the conversation always starts once more from the beginning with nothing greater learned.

Similarly with the gender slop Discourse. The conversation always begins (at least from the female side) with a question along the lines of:

A1/B1 - “Why are incels so icky and dangerous to women? How do we scold them into being better?”

However, based on the force of facts and inquiry, the conversation always leads to the more advanced question:

A9/B9- “So why are so many men incels and what can be done to change these conditions?”

Of course, everyone wants to discuss how icky incels are, there are entire web careers based on this. As Rohan points out, there have been countless professional documentaries on just this topic. Bloggers like CHH have entire careers that explore the A1/B1 level of the controversy without ever going deeper. Her fans couldn’t even begin to answer the deeper questions without just resorting to hand waving.

But frankly from my side, I am just exhausted by the repetition. I will sit down and talk with anyone regardless of where they are. But I don’t want to blow up the conversation just when we get to the essential crux so we can execute another cycle of “chat bot reset” in an endless digital samsara.

Conversations are supposed to progress.