N/F is Legion, for they are MAAAANY.
But on a serious note. The best weapon against N/F Legion is to point out how utterly absurd they're being in a logical, highly sophisticated context with the liberal application of TACT.
"You
DO realize that you seem to be getting all bent out of shape like a pretzel over a pair of completely
fictional characters... right? It seems to me to be rather unhealthy to obsess over this to the point where one seems to lose their handle on what is reality, and what is fantasy."
This usually shuts them up right quick so long as you haven't shot yourself in the foot by being the hypocrite and they call you on it.
Works on just about any Rabid Fan. Simply apply a simple logical formula.
1: Point out that the characters/plot/event/pairing/whatever in question is a fantasy and that it's not real.
2: Point out that the reaction of target person is as if the characters/plot/event/pairing/whatever IS real...
3: Make a note that the inability to distinguish reality and fantasy is considered an unhealthy mental state.
4: If your wording hasn't done so already, reinforce that confusing fantasy with reality is exactly what they're doing, and that something is wrong with that.
Points to watch out for when wording the Anti-Rabid response...
- Never EVER label them. Never call them crazy, never say they are mentally disturbed, unhealthy, obsessed... etc. None of this directly, EVER. In debate, it is an Ad Hominem Fallacy, and anyone sharp enough will dog the argument.
- Never say that they ARE obsessing. The natural reaction is the Denial response. Refference the action from an objective perspective and not the person. Point out how the action by itself is absurd, not the person. 'This seems...' 'That appears...' rather than 'You seem to be...' etc.
- If you do choose to address them directly. Do so only on observational comments and in a wording that shows that you are making an observation, not a judgement.
- Keep it short. The temptation to turn the response into a rant is huge, but keep it down to a few paragraphs max. You response has to be 'The Man With The Golden Gun'. Not to mention the smaller your response, the less ammo you give them.
-NEVER LOSE YOUR COMPOSURE. Once you plant yourself on the high ground of logic, you must maintain composure. The more desperate they get, the more absurd they get...
With a well worded anti-rabid response in play, the opposition has only limited options.
A: They STFU out of realization they are being absurd.
B: They STFU because you gave them nothing to respond to.
C: They manage to pull a red herring argument out of nowhere and make complete fools of themselves.
D: They go batshit 5/yr old on you. (Name calling, wild accusations... You know how that works.)
A.B. are total victories on the spot. C.D. are half victories on the spot, and total if the local Moderation Staff are up to snuff and 'deal' with them the moment they come unglued. Thus, C and D end up being Self Solving much of the time.
Be warned, also avoid getting too far into the Duel of Oppinions. In this, if you give your oppinion on a subjective topic, like your favorite pairing... Watch out for someone that tries to dissect your oppinion. (Usually a rabid fan.) They will attempt to take your oppinion apart (usually with liberal use of Quote Omnislash, a form Out of context quoting) and explain to you why each piece of your oppinion is flawed and/or wrong. The temptation is to counter-argue the point by either justifying your oppinions in analytical breakdowns, or attack their oppinions. The problem with this... is there is no CORRECT position, and no evidence to support it.
The best option is to disengage here and point out that the argument is devolving into a duel of oppinions and that there is no correct position. If they choose to persist, they're probably going to make themselves game for the Anti-Rabid Response within a post or three. Be ready to pounce.
Most are sane, and will back down upon recognizing the Duel of Oppinion.
Also: Never go into an argument without your tools. Just as a soldier does not go to war without his weapons, you should not go into an argument without the ability to identify complete horseraddish.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/I suggest becoming incipidly familliar with 'Ad Hominem' and its Variants, as well as 'Straw Man' and 'Red Herring'. And learning to recognize these attacks without having to refference the list.
'Ad Hominem' deals with attacks to you, your circumstances, or your qualifications in an attempt to discredit your argument indirectly.
'Straw man' is a favorite of forum goers everywhere. Any time someone takes your point, throws it against new context, often exaggerated in their favor, and then attacks the completely altered argument is guilty of a Straw Man. You want to be able to spot these instantly, because its so easy to derail the argument with a Straw Man and manipulate the unprepared into a trap argument, and you also need to be able to distinguish them from legitimate 'would be like...' counter-arguments.
The Red Herring is a kind of 'Misdirection' logical fallacy, Or a bait and switch tactic. The opponent can't win the argument of the current topic, so they lead you into an alternate topic they can win, and then pounce.
Read the list, you'll get the idea.