Paradox of Internet Arguing

Severian, the pen name behind the Founding Questions blog, named it the Fundamental Paradox of Internet Liberalism in a post of 25 August 2026, a label he says he had used before. In his telling, his opponents on the left hold that conservatives would agree if they were not too dim to follow the argument; by their own account that makes arguing pointless, and yet they keep arguing. The pattern shows up on both sides: in a 2022 Pew survey, about half of Republicans (51%) and of Democrats (52%) said members of the other party are more unintelligent than other Americans.

In practice

• A campaign's rapid-response team spends the day rebutting voters its own internal memo describes as beyond reach.
• A commenter tells a stranger that some people are simply incapable of understanding the point, then posts four more replies explaining it.

Possible explanations

One explanation is that online arguments are addressed to onlookers rather than to the opponent, so the charge of stupidity is aimed at the audience. Another is naive realism: people who believe they see an issue plainly read disagreement as a failure to understand, and argue in the hope of correcting it. A third is inferential distance: each side lacks the background that makes the other's case obvious, so each looks slow to the other.

In its favour

Names a pattern most readers will recognise, and survey data show the belief it describes is common and close to symmetric between the parties. Useful as a prompt to ask who an argument is really for.

Against it

Rests on one writer's observation rather than a study. If the charge of stupidity is rhetorical rather than sincerely held, there may be no contradiction to explain. The original formulation was aimed at one side, and the generalisation is this ledger's.

Standing

Compare naive realism and inferential distance.

Subject

Communication & Media

Essay

The folk laws of argument and attention