The internet is a place where arguments go to die.
It’s a digital circus of noise, and just like a circus, nothing really gets resolved.
It’s all flashing lights, loud voices, and people making big, bold claims while never really saying anything at all.
Everyone’s got a soapbox, and everyone’s got a microphone, but nobody ever listens.
So, we shout louder, we type faster, we spew our opinions, and somehow, we end up nowhere. Again.
But if you pause for a second and look at this mess, really look at it, there’s a reason for it.
A reason that traces back to a guy who lived in a world where email was a myth, where hashtags were something you scraped off your shoes, and where online debates didn’t exist yet.
His name? Charles Sanders Peirce.
You might not have heard of him, but trust me, this guy had it figured out.
Peirce had a theory about truth, and if you really dig into it, you’ll see that it explains exactly why we’re stuck in these endless, pointless loops of internet bickering.
Let’s take a deep dive into why internet arguments go around in circles, and how Peirce’s views can help us make sense of this circus we call digital debate.
1. Truth Isn’t a Fixed Thing, It’s What Works
Peirce wasn’t in the business of handing out truth like it was a coupon.
Truth, for him, wasn’t about some grand cosmic discovery or a universal law floating up in the heavens.
No. Truth was practical. It was about what works.
What works in the world, what leads to action, what gets results.
Now, take that thought and throw it into the current state of internet arguments.
You’re talking to someone about a policy, or a political issue, or some social cause, and they say, “This is true, this is right.”
But what are they really saying?
Are they talking about an objective truth, or are they just pushing their personal viewpoint?
In internet arguments, truth becomes fluid. It’s not about what is, but what we want it to be.
Peirce would say, truth is something that gets tested through action. If it doesn’t do anything in the world, it’s just noise.
And that’s where the chaos begins.
We’re not testing our truths, we’re just shouting them into the void and seeing what sticks.
2. Words, Those Lovely Little Distractions
One of the things Peirce nailed was the role of definitions in an argument.
If you can’t agree on what words mean, then you’re not arguing—you’re just talking past each other.
Let’s say you’re arguing about the “patriarchy” or “racism.”
You think you both know what you mean by those terms, but the truth is, you don’t.
One of you is talking about cultural stereotypes, while the other is pointing to economic inequality. The terms are the same, but the meanings are different.
Peirce would argue that until you’re on the same page about definitions, the whole thing’s a waste of time.
So you can argue for hours, and hours, and hours, and nothing ever changes because the very foundations of the argument are built on sand.
But still, people go on, because they don’t realize that the whole fight is rooted in miscommunication. “You say tomato, I say tomato,” and here we are, making a salad.
3. The Endless Spiral of Arguments
You know how internet arguments go.
One person says, “Social media is harmful because it’s leading to mental health issues and unrealistic beauty standards,” and another responds, “Social media has nothing to do with mental health; it’s just a tool that people choose to use, and any negative effects are due to individual choices, not the platform itself.”
Both are talking about the same thing—social media’s impact on mental health—but from entirely different perspectives.
One is looking at the cultural and psychological effects, the other is focused on personal responsibility and individual choice.
They’re not even debating the same issue—they’re just using the same words, but with completely different meanings behind them.
In Peirce’s terms, they’re not even arguing about the same thing. They’ve defined “social media” in completely different ways, and as long as they stick to their definitions, they’ll keep butting heads.
They’re not circling each other in a thoughtful exchange—they’re running in place, barking at a wall.
This is the heart of the problem: Internet arguments are doomed to fail because they start with faulty premises.
Everyone’s got their own set of effects, their own version of the truth.
And the result? The conversation loops endlessly, a hamster running on a wheel.
4. The Labels Are Just Noise
Here’s the thing: We’ve all been there. Someone calls something “unsustainable” or “elitist,” and suddenly, the argument morphs into a semantic brawl.
What does “unsustainable” even mean? Is it about environmental degradation, or is it more about overconsumption in society?
What’s “elitism” supposed to be—a small, powerful group, or just wealthy people who’ve “made it” and look down on others?
Peirce would have loved this. He wasn’t fond of labels—especially the ones we sling around in debates with no real understanding of what we’re saying.
If you don’t know what you mean when you use a word, you’re setting yourself up for a disaster of logic.
It’s like debating about a book you’ve never read. Sure, you might have opinions, but they’re all hollow and uninformed.
The problem with these labels is that they act as roadblocks.
Instead of tackling the real issue, people waste time fighting over what words mean, rather than focusing on whether those words represent actual truths.
Peirce would argue that you can’t have a productive debate until you agree on definitions grounded in their real-world effects.
5. The Myth of Winning an Internet Argument
Internet arguments have a strange aura. You go in with all the right intentions, you think you’re going to “win” the debate.
You’re armed with facts, logic, and your shiny new keyboard. But what happens when you’re on the other side of the screen?
You start digging in your heels. You start thinking, “I can’t let this person win,” even when you don’t know what “winning” actually means in this context.
Peirce would have none of this. For him, arguments weren’t about victory or defeat—they were about finding what worked.
What were the practical effects of this discussion?
What could we do with what we learned?
But that’s not how the internet works.
On the internet, the point is to win. It’s about who gets the last word, who can deliver the most savage burn, and who can post the most likes.
This is where the conversation collapses.
6. The Unresolved Nature of Digital Discourse
You’d think, after hours of back-and-forth, that someone would raise their hand and say, “Hey, maybe we’re talking about different things here.”
But no, that never happens. People don’t have the self-awareness to realize they’re caught in a loop.
It’s the same story every time: you argue until you’re both too tired to care, and then you walk away, still stuck with your own version of the truth.
Peirce was all about inquiry—about getting to the truth through careful, thoughtful investigation.
But on the internet? Inquiry gets drowned out by ego, by the need to be right. So, no one gets anywhere. It’s the same in the real world, just faster and louder.
7. Peirce’s Pragmatic Response: Too Simple for Today’s World?
Peirce’s solution to all this is deceptively simple: We need to define terms by their effects.
We need to stop treating arguments like power struggles and start asking, “What does this mean for us? What should we do about it?”
But here’s the thing—nobody’s doing that. We’re too busy trying to prove we’re the smartest person in the room.
So, what’s the takeaway here? Peirce’s philosophy gives us a roadmap to clear, practical thinking.
But it’s not a popular map.
The internet thrives on chaos, on constant noise. Peirce’s brand of truth doesn’t stand a chance when everyone’s busy throwing punches in the dark.
Table 1: Peirce’s Pragmatic Approach to Arguments
| Step | Peirce’s Approach | Common Internet Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Define terms based on practical effects | Assume shared definitions |
| Argumentation | Focus on practical consequences | Dig in heels over personal opinions |
| Resolution | Seek actionable truth | Engage in endless back-and-forth |
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.