The only way many people can stay mentally coherent to ideological positions is if they don't read dissenting positions too closely. They try to slot opposing opinions into pre-formed straw-man arguments, then they reiterate their pre-fabricated counter-arguments.
It's a pattern you see almost universally in the user comment sections of political journalism. People who want to think find the comment section's tone hostile, because it's filled with ideologues with Pavlovian responses and pre-canned arguments. The ideologues don't need to read what the other side's ideologues have written - they just need a few key words and they're salivating. Political comment sections are a write-only platform.
I don't think this phenomenon is specific to any political ideology, mind. I think it's fairly universal.
I honestly don't know whether to upvote you for describing an important phenomenon or to downvote you for semi-implicit accusation of intellectual dishonesty towards a long-time HN user.
Personally, I disagree with 'yummyfajitas conclusions, but I wouldn't go as far as to imply motivated reasoning.
It's a pattern you see almost universally in the user comment sections of political journalism. People who want to think find the comment section's tone hostile, because it's filled with ideologues with Pavlovian responses and pre-canned arguments. The ideologues don't need to read what the other side's ideologues have written - they just need a few key words and they're salivating. Political comment sections are a write-only platform.
I don't think this phenomenon is specific to any political ideology, mind. I think it's fairly universal.