[PeterStuer]

Hear hear! Even here on HN, e.g. discussions that come within a 200 mile radius of identity politics can immediately expect to be mobbed. I'm still trying to figure out whether these misrepresentations are deliberate, or just the result of an extremely biased or myopic world view. Communication by nature only works if the parties involved are trying to understand each other. Deliberately trying to polarize or frame each sentence doesn't serve any purpose other than to fuel division.

[Clubber]

I read a comment on here I believe where someone surmised this is an effect of the anti-bully movement that happened about 10 years ago. Now we not only have bullies (in the traditional term) but we have mobs of people who are eager to bully a perceived bully and have zero tolerance for anything other than their subscribed world view.

The antidote is the same it's been since before the internet: don't put much value in what people think about you.

[indubitable]

In many things in life when people decide a 'side' it's most often an entirely subjective decision. This is by itself not immediately terrible - take a side and then adjust as you find a view more, or less, defensible or reasonable. The problem is when people get into situations where they consider the alternative absolutely unthinkable.

How can they respond to views that challenge their own in this case? I think this is why you see 95% of "discussion" in contentious topics end up as being loaded with little more than straw men, ad hominem, and all the other fun products of internet "discussion." Of course the problem is people thinking anything ought be unthinkable. The domain of the faithful is one I'd rather never rejoin again -- perhaps a personal voyage too few have been given the opportunity to undertake in today's society.