I often agree with Wojtek, and gain from reading his posts, but because there are 2 or 3 areas in which I regularly differ with him (the function of the prison-industrial complex ranging into racial issues, general antipathy towards people in the US, maybe some other things I can't recall right now) I think of him as someone I 'disagree with.' While it's maybe 5-10% of his total postage it looms large in my mind unless I take conscious account.
[WS:] That seems consistent with my view how human perception of others works. We tend to form a "master frame" through which others are perceived, based on their stance on an issue that features saliently in our own frame of perception. Once that master frame is formed it governs our perception of all acts by others, regardless of the empirical evidence. That is, if evidence is consistent with the master frame, we acknowledge it and use to further reinforce the master frame, but if it is not - we tend to ignore it or explain it away.
For example, humane treatment of animals is a salient issue in my own frame of perception. If another person violates the above principle in some way - i.e. he is an avid hunter, exonerates an act of cruelty to animals, or holds views that animals are 'inferior' to humans and their treatment does not matter - that violation influences my master frame through which I perceive that person, e.g. as a cruel sadistic bastard that enjoys seeing others suffer. Once the master frame is formed, I tend to "find" evidence in that person's communicative acts that is consistent with that frame, e.g. if a person says that he likes horror movies, I tend to take notice and think or say "it figures." OTOH, I tend to ignore evidence that is inconsistent with that mater frame, e.g. that person showing compassion for the "less fortunate."
That seems to work especially well when we do not have direct contact with people whom we judge i.e. in politics and public life, including internet forums.
Wojtek