There's a weird pathology in internet discussions that's been around forever, but it's really flared up around this whole Gamergate thing. It sounds like this: a random person will hop into a discussion or retweet or post and start Sea Lioning you (http://wondermark.com/c/2014-09-19-1062sea.png) by asking for "proof" to defend your position. For the opposite position, they will have link after link that "proves" you wrong.

This sounds reasonable on the surface, but it's really a clever misdirection from the fact that the interrupter is arguing a position that is far from reasonable. There are two big problems at play here: First, it is really easy to find a link that supports any position, and second, people with reasonable positions don't usually find it necessary to keep a compendium of links to back up every position they take.

The first point is pretty obvious. You can find websites full of information about how the holocaust didn't happen, the moon landing didn't happen, the earth is flat, 9/11 was a setup by the US government, and the world is run by lizard people. The existence of these websites doesn't mean ANYTHING for those positions at all. You can compile all the information you want and still be WRONG.

The second issue is less obvious, but if you think about it, you can see what I mean. Imagine two people, one who believes the moon landing was faked, and one who takes the opposing position. Imagine what their online interactions must look like surrounding those opinions. Someone who believes the moon landing is faked knows for a fact that they have a lot of 'splainin' to do. They will have links to the sites that convinced them of their insane position. They will have arguments prepared because they have had these arguments over and over again. For them it is like a chess game that they've played over and over.

For the average person who believes that we landed on the moon because, you know, we DID, the discussion looks very different. This is an obviously crazy person who is throwing link after link at them that they do not have time to read. They can't refute the points because every point they refute is followed by another chunk of bullshit to sort through. They don't have their own links because this is not a game they play often.

The demand for evidence, then, serves not to ensure factuality of the arguments, but to disadvantage the person with the sane position. It's like saying that instead of having a discussion, we're instead going to play a strategy game that only one side has practiced and has time for. It's saying that instead of discussing rationally, you have to dedicate an hour to reading and refuting bullshit.

And that's why I refuse to engage with crazy people on my feed. When Totalbiscuit posts this https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CC53z7kVAAAe-YV.png:large and I make fun of him for it, I'm absolutely not going to link you to counterfacts. Why? Because the wage gap is fucking real, and no amount of bullshit internet links is going to change that. You're not looking for me to change your mind, you're looking to waste my time until I give up, and then you let yourself think that makes you right.

It doesn't make you right. It just makes you an asshole.