The blogger does say the norms they propose are for 'the genteel corridors of long-form internet writing', which, as you say, make up a tiny portion of all 'int

The blogger does say the norms they propose are for 'the genteel corridors of long-form internet writing', which, as you say, make up a tiny portion of all 'internet debates'. This sort of writing is always 'with audience', and it is telling that the word 'glory' appears twice in the blog-post. I think the blogger's missing forest is that it is nigh impossible to have an 'us vs the problem' debate unless 'you and me' both agree on the assumptions that frame the problem. If we do not first root out and address incongruous assumptions, we will forever talk past each other, no matter how many brass tacks we jump on, even if it seems to bystanders that we both speak the same language. As an aside, I believe that a person's assumptions/beliefs are inseparable from who that person is (you are what you eat). For me, it is silly to critique an idea without much consideration about what person/people communicated that idea and why they believe it (assuming they do). I often find that the truth is not as cut and dry as I assumed. If your goal is 'internet glory', then sure, that is a waste of time. You are better off gaming engagement algorithms. But, if I may ride a high horse, mutual understanding is a sweeter nectar.