About 15 years ago, if I remember correctly, I found the Freep forum through a repost elsewhere. Not knowing about the political leaning there at first, I began to post. I had some genuinely interesting debates with other posters, almost all of whom were conservative. I don't remember many of the specific arguments but I learned quite a bit from some of them and sincerely hope others learned as much from me.
The best debates were always cordial, wherein all active parties either cited and explored their sources or at least tried to express and defend their opinions rationally.
This went on for about a year, until my participation dropped off when life got in the way. That was enough time, I think, for me to figure out which posters were arguing in good faith and from a place of legitimate disagreement.
I've spent a long time, and a lot of effort, on debate and on learning from it. So, too, did a fair minority of Freepers. And that is far from the only right-leaning place where I maintained not just short exchanges but long-running debates with people who were a world away politically or/and theologically.
It is that kind of debate which should be the standard for news-related opinion programs, but it isn't; and in part because it isn't, the quality of debate among far too many persons online, regardless of political or theological persuasion, has taken an absolute nose-dive. I'm not just talking about hostile responses to OPs, which I give often as not, but rather about the growing belief that people with strong convictions and strong opinions simply cannot debate civilly nor learn anything from those in the same position but with opposed opinions.
The result of such a decline is on display in the OP.
I do see a shameless liar, but that's Trillian. He may plead "confusion" as an excuse for his decision to conflate homosexuals with transwomen with pedophiles with people who "pretend" to be something they're not.
That can mean only one of two things, both bad:
1) He is so ignorant he honestly doesn't know what the precise differences are...which in no way dampens his enthusiasm for condemning sexual minorities wholesale and largely for no reason (since the sexual identities and preferences of other people, most of whom recognise and respect the need for consent, don't personally impact him).
2) He does recognise the distinctions and doesn't give a damn. He is posting on Freep, after all, so he could be relying on either the ignorance or the apathy of fellow posters to cover his own ass. That, of course, means he is flatly lying.
Ours is an era of high literacy, especially in developed countries, as well as the capacity to easily find information on a boggling array of topics; and to pass that information along with a few clicks, swipes, or touches.
Rather than being a golden age for good argument, however, it seems the opposite has happened or maybe it's just a matter of my paying attention to squeaky wheels.
On a side note, for those open to some unsolicited advice, I recommend keeping hard-copies of useful sources (or, in the case of academic papers, their names and summaries) and I highly encourage people to build up personal libraries. It needn't cost a lot for someone who buys used at thrift shops, takes advantage of library sales, and looks for interesting material among give-aways. Sometimes, I'll buy new. I do have e-copies of many of my books, some of which I bought while others including a few surprising ones are legally available free with permission from the copyright holder (or in such cases as copyright has expired). While this advice might seem to come out of nowhere, it's related to my thoughts above in that I like to have access to valuable source material without having to rely on the net absolutely. I usually do use the net, but it's nice to have options.
