Or just do what comes naturally. People will do that anyway, and it will all come out in the wash at the end.

"What just comes naturally" is often fighting back. It's usually counterproductive.

Short-term, yes. Long-term, it doesn't really have much of an effect. People get exhausted, then things calm down and we all move on.

> Long-term, [fighting back] doesn't really have much of an effect.

I wonder about that. People like to fight about things. Someone who is ranting on the net about -- say -- Rust is not doing things that actually hurt people very much. Might that be a great benefit?

I observed a couple of decades ago that the creation-evolution debate was a wonderful thing, since it kept a bunch of angry, annoying people (on both sides!) engaged in relatively harmless pursuits that the rest of use are free to ignore. Perhaps the same is true of other contentious issues.

Despite what the 24-hour news channels suggest, we live in the most peaceful, nonviolent era in all of human history. How much of that is due to the fact that people can blow of steam using communications media?

(That said, I do prefer discussions that avoid becoming flamefests. That part about "... that the rest of us are free to ignore" is an important consideration.)

Well, fighting back is counterproductive for you. It wastes your time. It also usually makes you angry, which wastes more of your time and can warp your perspective on things that matter.

Very true.

So, to sum up, anyone looking for something to do should choose the earliest item on the following list that they can handle.

1. Do good things.

2. Scream at people on the net.

3. Do horrifically evil things.

This is good advice for many technology communities.