Some of the arguments I have with people on Telegram feel like trying to explain to an adult why they should wear a seatbelt whenever they’re in a vehicle.

Wearing a seatbelt isn’t actually necessary to operate a vehicle, and plenty of people drive around “safely” everyday without wearing one. So if someone has been driving without a seatbelt for years and nothing bad has happened to them, nothing I say about why they should wear one is necessarily going to convince them. In their mind, nothing bad can happen if nothing bad has happened.

The only thing that would objectively vindicate my side of the argument is them finally getting into a serious car accident and going face-first through the windshield. Until that happens, their anti-seatbelt position still has a certain plausibility to it: I’ve never worn one before, and I’ve been fine.

Just like with the seatbelt example, some arguments are unwinnable—and therefore unconstructive—not because you’re wrong, but because time and events haven’t proven the other side wrong yet.

Realizing this sheds some light on the futility of arguing online sometimes. People can just continue insisting that you’re wrong for as long as reality hasn’t yet forced them to confront the consequences of being wrong.