Especially important for those who think social science is the runaway winner for bitter disagreements.
What's kinda surprising is the intense name-calling and ad hominem attacks. But I have a theory about that which is probably not original but I don't remember where I saw it. Suppose someone says something to you that is obviously wrong. Say someone tells you "2 + 2 = 19". Do you get angry? Do you want to verbally abuse the person? I think not. I think you explain, calmly and simply, why that's wrong. If the person repeats the statement, maybe you try to explain, again calmly, a different way why that's wrong. If the person persists in claiming 2 + 2 = 19 you just shrug and walk away. The person is either trolling you or is crazy, but you don't get angry.
Now suppose someone makes a statement that you think is clearly wrong but not obviously so. But you think that demonstrating convincingly the statement is wrong will take more time, energy, and care than you're willing to devote. (And you may suspect that even if you took the time and care, you would not be able to prove your case 100%.) That's what prompts the anger, even the furious name-calling.
And I think that's also what accounts for a lot of the fury in our current politics.