The problem is that "luddite" is an ad hominem insult, that does nothing to lay the foundation for a constructive discussion. Typically, such name-calling occur

The problem is that "luddite" is an ad hominem insult, that does nothing to lay the foundation for a constructive discussion. Typically, such name-calling occurs either when the responder is lazy (and does not wish to go into details) or not sufficiently thoughtful (Read PG, on the Blub paradox). Particularly, when the insult is lobbed in a dismissive tone, it might be meant to reinforce their esteem by asserting their group identity -- this tactic is often deployed by someone playing zero-sum status games (possibly subconsciously). A simple inquiry requesting clarification/elaboration will help you resolve the situation into the following categories: 1. Person has thoughtful counterpoints. 2. Person has simplistic and superficial counterpoints. 3. Person is not interested in improving their/your understanding. After that, you can choose to indulge depending on your emotional stamina and the importance of the topic/situation/person i.e. "pick your battles" as mentioned in another comment. Your best chance of having a meaningful discussion is when sticking to matters of substance rather than knee-jerk ad hominem based on pattern matching. If that's happening, you have nothing to worry about. The best case is often when the other person has thoughtful points that make you reconsider your position or evolve to a hybrid perspective :-)