... Assuming failure to give further damns is a virtue.
There was a time, up until fairly recently, when I would absolutely fly off the handle if somebody was wrong on the internet, which frankly could be an entire blog in itself. If we're being perfectly honest, I still do. I just don't invest nearly as much time as I used to in the process. The lazy part of me has realized it's often easier to hit "back" than to hit "reply". This is particularly true when the wrongness is centred around theology, morality, or philosophy.
As I try to remind myself, I have no formal training in either the former or latter field, and my own culture-level rendition of moral relativism makes it hard to come down saying "X is wrong" without appending "because Y says so.". Sure, there are a few moral absolutes that are a lot easier to argue in favour of (for example, I am generally against the taking of human life regardless of purpose or authority). In philosophy, I can generally only look for logical fallacies in the argument. With Theology, I can't even really do that; I'm pretty much limited to making sure that quotes used are in context.
But I suppose it leaves me happier. I still engage in political debate, where time allows, but even then I don't follow as voraciously as many other people do. I might read on for a page or two after my post but as a general rule, I'm not narcissistic enough to troll, and don't get called "wrong" often enough to necessitate living on my refresh button.
I suppose there's a zen in there some place. I had grander plans for this post (I intended to talk about the similarities between eastern meditative practice and lectio divina), but I like this better.