While this is obviously wrong, it does serve to illustratea point: when dealing with controversial subjects, there is a tendency towards tribalism. When you're for one "side", the other side is by definition wrong, and you must defend your "side" at all costs. Any criticism of any aspect of your side is an attack against the tribe and by extension, you. An attack requires a counterattack, and since at this point the person is engaging their amygdala, even their most incorrect statements seem completely factual and rational to them.
It makes things like editors, languages, syntactic style, and development paradigms impossible to discuss rationally and reasonably.
It makes things like editors, languages, syntactic style, and development paradigms impossible to discuss rationally and reasonably.