I want to float what's perhaps a controversial opinion to see what everybody's thoughts on the matter are. The general consensus is to try and be polite at all times. However, I will argue that there are necessary limits to politeness and that it can be counterproductive at times.
When somebody makes a comment in good faith, I think it's important to engage with it in good faith. If there is a disagreement then it can be articulated in a clear and polite manner. The hope is that the discussion will be productive and everyone will learn something in the process.
On the other hand, when comments are made with the intention of trolling then trying to engage them as if they were made in good faith only plays into the hands of the troll. Addressing the points that the troll makes as if they had merit implicitly validates these points as if they need to be debated.
In my view, the proper response to trolls is ridicule. They have to be called out for what they are and we should not take the bait to attempt starting a debate with them. Instead, it's better to simply make it clear that the opinion is garbage and not worth discussing.
The argument against being snarky is that it can drive people away, but I don't know that there is much weight to that in practice. Anybody who's read Lenin can see that his writing is full of snark, and he often ridiculed opportunists and revisionists. Clearly that didn't hinder the Bolshevik movement all that much.
I think it's important for us to express confidence in our views, and to be assertive about our positions. The facts are on our side, and we don't need to act as if our position is the one that needs defending.
I generally agree, but speaking for me it depends on a few factors.
One is where I am posting. I don't post exclusively on lemmygrad communities, and I am aware that if I am posting about politics on other instance communities will probably meet with a more hostile reception. I have even noticed lemmy.ml has definitely been drifting more and more liberal recently. I try to engage in good faith there when I can not necessarily because I expect to change their mind but other people may become interested (I even maintain a second account there just so people don't instantly disregard everything I say because of my instance). Whereas the liberals who wander into lemmygrad communities are either there to actively troll or very very lost; there's not much of an audience that needs convincing because a lot of the audience will be well...us.
Obviously there is the content too. If they are willing to argue in good faith I am more inclined to have a polite discussion. I think it is important we recognize the difference in people who are actually interested in discussion and those who are just couching their trolls in more polite language. I have definitely been fooled by people in the latter category before I realized they weren't even reading my replies to them and just using a mask of respectability to sound more appealing.
Speaking personally, I remember back when I still identified as a socdem and hadn't really read theory much yet. I remember checking out /r/genzedong /r/genzhou and /r/sino specifically because I heard they were horrible places, and I wanted to see why. Not only did I find that not to be the case, I found them to be very friendly and welcome for the most part. I probably would have become a socialist regardless of reddit as I actually read books, but it definitely didn't hurt.
I was actually thinking primarily of the lemmy.ml crowd when I made the post. There's been a very noticeable shift towards liberal mainstream after the migration. I completely agree that it's generally better for us to err on the side of giving people the benefit of the doubt and try engage in a friendly fashion if they're willing to have a discussion. Ultimately we do want to deprogram as many people in the mainstream as we can.