I've seen ironic trend of calling someone else's assertion "pedantic" as another way to polarize and shut down debate. That "confrontation quiz" attitude is very real, and it's often a way to avoid actually listening to someone else so you get to be correct.
It's almost like there is a handbook out there somewhere on "how to win an argument on the internet" where people are using manipulative tricks to try to shut down debate and appear as the "victor".
Schopenhauer wrote a good one, his 38 Stratagems from The Art of Controversy, all of them still very relevant. e.g. I see #32 all the time:
If you are confronted with an assertion, there is a short way of getting rid of it, or, at any rate, of throwing suspicion on it, by putting it into some odious category; even though the connection is only apparent, or else of a loose character. You can say, for instance, "That is Manichaeism," or "It is Arianism," or "Pelagianism," or "Idealism," or "Spinozism," or "Pantheism," or "Brownianism," or "Naturalism," or "Atheism," or "Rationalism," "Spiritualism," "Mysticism," and so on. In making an objection of this kind, you take it for granted (1) that the assertion in question is identical with, or is at least contained in, the category cited—that is to say, you cry out, "Oh, I have heard that before"; and (2) that the system referred to has been entirely refuted, and does not contain a word of truth.
Oh fantastic- thanks for these. I see # 6 a lot too, especially generalizing what somebody says (eg: universal health care) into a much larger category (eg: universal socialism) that includes a lot of negative components (eg: deadbeats, corrupt governments, unremovable presidents/generals).
I had a similar thought while reading this article.
A case that the article itself is "100% correct but [missing] the point" can also be made. Perhaps the speaker nitpicking garbage collectors works in a problem space prone to dangling references, which would make a "pedantic" point actually very relevant, at least to that speaker. Shutting that person down isn't helpful to that person, though perhaps in context a large number of other people would rather stay on topic.
Context and empathy are helpful. In most cases, clarification of context, especially through follow-up questions, can keep conversation healthy.
