if someone comes into the thread and invokes Obama's purported membership in the Ulema, do we really need to be nice and calmly explain that that's not true for the umpteenth time, do we say "STFU troll", or do we just ignore the person, try not to emote the rolly-eyes, and move on?
In the interest of both educating people and not wasting time, this is why I think having boilerplate responses and resources to link to are good ideas. If you can just say "I've heard this a lot, and here is a good response:
link", then you can save time without belittling people. Of course, then the person will likely respond, leading to possibly the same dilemma.
As for the whole legitimacy thing: I get where you're coming from, but at the same time, it's sort of a self-fulfilling thing. When a significant number of people buy into something, and you can prove it wrong, then it's definitely worth your while to argue reasonably against it. The scope changes the nature of the tactics the problem deserves; in the same way that you wouldn't nuke a lone spear-wielding goblin from orbit, you often don't need to argue convincingly and at great length about whether or not the moon landing is a hoax. An army of such goblins, though, might warrant more effort.
I agree, but tactics aside: No matter how popular an idea is, how rational (or in some cases,
ethical) I'll think someone is for believing in it will largely hinge on its actual merits... but not a lot of people seem to think that way. Of course, I can't say that with any absolute conviction, since an idea being popular can cause people to believe in it who otherwise wouldn't, simply due to social influence.
In other news vaguely related to progressive thought: I reread the OP and noticed that satirical articles are mentioned in general, and that reminds me: Is it just me, or does some of the best non-traditionalist thinking often come from satirists? To me, a truly satirical mind is one capable of a sort of seeing through the spirit of contemporary culture and seeing the absurdity in people, culture, and the world in a way that results in thought that, to me, seems much more timeless. When I read good satire, no matter how old it is, I feel like I
understand the person who wrote it and feel a connection to them, even if they lived a thousand years ago in another part of the world. For example, read the introduction to Lucian's
True History; it was written nearly 1,900 years ago, but I still get exactly where the guy is coming from. The reason I mention this is that, while satire and satirists are often disregarded as nonserious or inconsequential, I feel that they're actually fairly important to social change, progressive thought, and greater understanding of the culture in which one lives. Concerning Lucian: People remember Herodotus as the "father of history", Pliny's "Natural History", and similar ancient historians, but why don't we remember guys like this calling them out on how abjectly full of shit they were?