Maybe it's good to waste time talking to goons online once a in a while.
While it's fine not to want to waste time talking to goons on the internet, I often hear people say that certain claims or arguments are simply "too stupid" or in some cases too morally repugnant to warrant discussion or debate.
These are often ideas that are already heavily stigmatized, but the two I hear this about most are fascism (extremely broadly defined) and the claim that we live on a flat earth.
It's easy to dismiss both ideas as utterly without merit, such that anyone arguing in favor of them must be ridiculed or ostracized out of polite society. But I actually hate this mentality and think it is tactically wrong, in addition to being kind of childish.
Firstly, the childish part is that it's just sooo damn easy to make accurate and unassailable counter arguments to both bad ideas. If you can't do that, then my guess is that you actually haven't spent any time actually learning why these kinds of things are wrong, and instead you believe they are wrong only because that's what you were taught to believe.
As an adult, you should be able to articulate why ideas like fascism, communism, flat earth, young earth creationism, etc. are wrong... But an awful lot of people can't do that, and instead turn to snark and evasion instead. This is intellectually weak and emotionally immature.
But on a more practical note, ignoring or avoiding challenging people with terrible ideas is a really good way to cede territory to the dumbest and worst people. It's a tactical disaster if you actually care about living in a world which advances over time, instead of one that devolves into thuggery and superstition.
Imagine a 13-14 year old kid who doesn't know anything about anything.
Should be easy, since they're everywhere. You've definitely met one. You probably were one.
Now imagine that as they start exploring what they believe about the world, someone with a charismatic attitude and a half decent sales pitch tells them that the earth is flat and they can prove it. They offer a bunch of "convincing" claims from people who call themselves "Doctor", and since the kid doesn't know any better, he finds these claims to be increasingly credible.
But if this kid is curious at all, he may go ask other folks for a second opinion. The kid is ignorant, but trying to learn.
Who do you think will win in the battle to persuade this kid on what to believe:
- The friendly, charismatic flat earther who offers lots of charts and links supporting his claims, or...
- A dismissive and rude person who scoffs and laughs at the mere idea of flat earth and tells the kid his questions are too dumb to warrant consideration.
?
Carl Sagan probably explained why flat earth was wrong thousands of times to innumerable people. This explanation, like most of Sagan's communication style, is so simple and easy to understand. It's not hard to show why these ideas are nuts, but if you don't actually understand why you can't persuade anyone to see what you see, and worse, all the people who would benefit from someone rebutting a loosely held belief won't change their minds.