""when .... wish to replace hard facts with the 'talking points' of their particular ideology...and then just keep stubbornly pushing...""

Gfs,right on...But, from an objective perspective, a neutral observer would likely see this occuringon either side of a hotly debated mudcat issue, like this obe. Additionally, my observation is that both sides have attempted to define some fairly "soft stuff" (IMO, with little objective research) as "hard facts". Each side seems to be fairly convinced that "their ideology" is the basis of the "truth", and seek sources to prop it up.

Unfortunately, those with less connection with either ideology, are either ignored, minimized, or treated with suspucian, and seen as a supporter of "the other side" of the issue.

Would that not be the source of the discord, and the nasty stuff, from normally nice people?