One of the drawbacks of social media is that anyone with anything to say can, in fact, say it. On the one hand, this allows Christians to edify people across the world, and engage in apologetics without even having to leave the comfort of their own home. On the other hand, it allows people to say some of the silliest things imaginable.
One particular example I remember is when I used to run Path Treader Ministries, and I posted an article on consistency. One line from the article was something like "if you are saved, act saved". This is a rather fair message, I'm sure you'll agree. But one commenter copied the quote, and explicitly voiced his disagreement.
Now, what do you imagine his disagreement was? Surely, it wasn't that Christians shouldn't act saved? No. Rather, his objection was that unbelievers, apostates, and heretics, can also "act" saved. So, really, his "disagreement" wasn't disagreement. At least, it seems unlikely he would disagree. Even if he did disagree, what sense would that make? "The unsaved can act saved, so obviously the saved don't need to". That doesn't make sense at all.
Similarly, it doesn't make sense, in an article encouraging Christians to be consistent with their faith, to make a point about unbelievers being consistent with the Christian faith. Unbelievers, even heretics, are not so significant that it is necessary to mention them as a side note in every article on any given topic.
So what really happened here? On the one hand, it's possible he genuinely disagreed with my contention that consistency is important. In this case, he's not presenting an intelligent position. If, when faced with an article promoting consistency, you then begin to promote inconsistency, that's called "hypocrisy", and no one likes hypocrisy. But it's more likely he agreed with the point, but framed what could have simply been an additional point as disagreement. But why frame addition as disagreement?
Now, this is just one example, but this is one of those things we see on social media all too often. In an effort to appear wiser than we are, we "disagree" with things that we don't actually disagree with. Sometimes, this is actually a defence mechanism. I doubt it is in this particular case, but say, for example, we see a post about church attendance, and we pop up with "what about people in hospital?" Well, do you agree or disagree that we shouldn't make a habit of skipping church? It's the same sort of thing. We try to look wise, but in the end, all we do is look like numpties!
This unfortunate attitude is one of many things clogging up discussion forums, but the root of the problem, I believe, is pride. If we can recognise when we are doing this kind of thing, we have identified an area of pride in our lives, and we need to tackle that. Once we've tackled it, our discussions will bear far more fruit.