TankieJerk

I know that experience. I can be vicious, but I generally don't take things personally, personally (ha). Sometimes I'm confused when someone is upset at me towards me for a prior argument, because while my tone can be incredibly bitter, sardonic, and biting, it's also generally not meant personally (unless I've had extensive experience with the other person, in which case it might be).

Part of it is that I'm an irritable fellow by nature - I'm not exactly responding with total zen, but rather an aching body and a sense of annoyance at having to re-tackle points I probably feel have fairly obvious flaws.

Part of it is that I regard pointing out the necessary implications of a point as both necessary and powerful in arguing. "You can't say that the descendants of immigrants must be expelled without applying that same logic to modern immigrants, which I think we would both find the same logic as modern fascists" isn't meant personally, but it does definitely have a component of it that can be fairly taken personally - that the position necessarily, if consistent and not just a gut reaction, implies a much deeper and more gruesome aspect of the person's core ideological identity. While meant as "This is not consistent with your other views, and this is to force you to confront that as a very serious break with the basic values you espouse", it's often taken instead as "You are a Bad Person and a Fascist; this is namecalling and degradation."

(it also doesn't help that I'm not above namecalling and degradation if I think the person actually consistently takes the position)

Part of it is that one of the core things I learned in my years of arguing is that people often retreat into "agree to disagree" or that the quibble is "just politics/policy" if allowed to, when the implications often went much deeper than that. Policy is something that can be simply disagreed on when sufficiently aligned - but policy often has implications of values and morals, and ignoring that is the same blinkered campism that tribalistic ideologies fall into. When Comrade Stalin(tm) starts talking about throwing degenerates into GULAG, you have to take a step back and say "This is incongruent with my basic values", not just "Oh, well, it's just a policy difference, we can agree to disagree." The alternative is either that you end up on the wrong side of the debate at some point (and thus often ostracized or punished by the fellows you 'agreed to disagree' with), or worse, you become a bootlicker.

Of course, there's also that I'm short-tempered myself, so if I feel it getting personal, I'm also not above responding in kind, lmao.

We as human beings are immensely poorly designed creatures. Someone needs to release a patch. :p