Why the Blogosphere (the Web?) is Unreadable

Nathan Myhrvold explains:

...Once people with a strong political or ideological bent latch onto an issue, it becomes hard to have a reasonable discussion; once you’re in a political mode, the focus in the discussion changes. Everything becomes an attempt to protect territory. Evidence and logic becomes secondary, used when advantageous and discarded when expedient. What should be a rational debate becomes a personal and venal brawl. Rational, scientific debate that could advance the common good gets usurped by personal attacks and counterattacks.

Political movements always have extremists — bitterly partisan true believers who attack anybody they feel threatens their movement. I’m sure you know the type, because his main talent is making himself heard. He doesn’t bother with making thoughtful arguments; instead, his technique is about shrill attacks in all directions, throwing a lot of issues up and hoping that one will stick or that the audience becomes confused by the chaos. These folks can be found at the fringe of every political movement, throughout all of history. Technology has amplified them in recent years. First with talk radio and then with cable TV, the extremists found larger and larger audiences.

The Internet provides the ultimate extremist platform. Every blogger can reach millions, and given the lack of scrutiny or review over content, there is little accountability. Indeed, the more over-the-top the discourse is the better — because it is entertaining. Ancient Romans watched gladiators in much the same way that we read angry bloggers.

(Cf. this comment.)

Another ploy is to find one sentence--one phrase--one word--to disagree with and behave as though the counterparty's entire position consists of that. From experience, I can say that such an attitude discourages efforts to do conscientious research like digging out hyperlinks, or to meet one's opponent halfway.

Addendum. Another ploy is to state one's position in a venomously supercilious tone. Instead of an illumination of differences and common ground, a discussion becomes a sneering/shouting match (or the vitriol-thrower is left to "win").