Reply with information, sources, or personal experiences, and try to put them out there with a little less venom. I get that it takes more time, and no one can expect that from everyone, but if the goal really is to educate and transfer wisdom, there has to be an understanding that it's not easy to do that and that couching the rhetoric with sarcasm is antithetical to the cause.
When I read the comments I want information and opinions. I don't want to have to contend with aggression and condescension.
I know that's all a bit starry eyed, and that there are few things that are absolute, this among them, but by and large that's how I feel about this sort of thing.
But as for my original point, I would always trust the snarker in this case over the harmonious river crab: based on my experience, the former's information is actually more useful than the latter's. Call it an imperfect generalization.
I'm amenable to the idea that it's got its place and that it can be useful. I just wonder how often it's useful compared to how often it's used.
To me it's a matter of figuring out whether or not you're really trying to educate as many people as you can, and which delivery method is most powerful for that goal. I think you can accomplish that without attacking someone else. Of course there's the idea that emotional responses can catalyze a more poignant memory, and as you say, draw more attention to your point.
shrug
And this is why I drink.
edit: (in reference to the response below) I should say that I've abstracted away from the concrete post that triggered all of this. Either way, this is the kind of dialogue I like. You can disagree on some things, get something out of it, and never have to get in anyone's face)
I'm not sure if it is fair to say the commenter was "attacking someone" unless they were spewing out ad hominems, of which I didn't see any.