In arguments/conversations on forums such as Reddit or Hacker News, you often find terms like “whataboutism” or one or other kind of fallacy bandied about. Any comment that could possibly be taken in the wrong way will inevitably have someone complain of an “ad hominem”. I feel like this is the latest manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect, people see this thing they heard of and feel they've “won”. I often see replies pointing out a fallacy and nothing else, no critical thinking, no interaction beyond pointing out a fallacy, no engagement with the actual content of the post. It's like terms are used as a thought-terminating cliché, so the commenter goes “ah they made a fallacy here! Now I can move on the reading the next post”, allowing one to safely ignore anything a post says, no matter how cogently written, because there is an error in one part and not needing to think about what's really written. That's assuming a fallacy has actually been made, often these terms are thrown around without any apparent knowledge about what they mean.
But it's not just the internet, I see this leaking out into meat space too. For example, I recall reading an article (sorry don't remember what it was) complaining how people can't speak emotionally in relationships anymore, that people can't say “I hate you". It became “your behaviour is toxic”, “you're gaslighting me by XYZ”, etc. We're being exposed to this sort of therapeutic and clinical language more and more. One hand, I am obviously happy that people can verbalise their feelings and be able to communicate it to others, I hope it's allowed people to get out of genuinely toxic and unhealthy situations but I also feel as though it's being weaponised (unintentionally I suspect) to pathologise normal (if unpleasant) behaviour or else as a bludgeon to attack others.
Our increasing awareness of mental health and mental illness is also being used this way. Now a days, instead of “wow this guy's an asshole” it's “this person clearly has BPD, you can see it when he X,Y and Z”. I'm sure you've seen this before: a video of someone behaving badly or strangely is posted and the replies will be full of armchair psychologists making diagnoses of this or that mental condition due to witnessing a few minutes of context-free video.
I think this, in part, comes from our new information society. The free and accessible nature of the internet has resulted in torrents of information with almost no time lag so people the world over can discuss something happening a continent away in real time. Everyone is expected to have an opinion on every event, every new idea, the latest scandal or tragedy. We need to have an opinion on the economy, we're supposed to understand the complex and nuanced causes of the latest geopolitical event. We've grown so used to the constant information feed that we now are expected to know everything, every new buzzword, proposed law, latest culture war topic. In short, we're now expected to be experts in all fields of knowledge and, with all the information in the world at our finger tips, we believe that we really are. Hell, I'm writing this after checking my RSS feed filled with news sites and blogs!
Perhaps I've just been hanging out on the pretentious side of the internet, perhaps I'm the one who's pretentious but this shift in how we communicate with others has become increasingly worrying to me. I just hope we don't sink deeper into our information silos, safe in the knowledge that we're not only correct but that the other side is clearly incoherent.
Maybe I'm just an old man yelling at clouds but have you noticed this to?
Especially your second paragraph I wouldn't call "intellectual", because there's no actual thinking. It might be pretend intellectual, pretentious, or some other term, but it's not actually intellectual.
What it really is, is scorched-earth zealotry that will not listen and will not shut up. It's a "score points at all costs, don't let them have a single point, continue the fight to the ends of the earth" approach that gets really annoying the hundredth time you see it in action. It (sometimes) wraps itself in intellectual-sounding words, because intellectual discourse has a number of things that can be used as shallow dismissals. But the point of the exercise is the dismissal, not the intellectual wording, and if a non-intellectual-sounding shallow dismissal seems like a better opportunity, that will be used instead.
By this I'm referring to the scale and velocity of words and other symbols, and their effects on mankind. The internet has enhanced the sense of individuality that a literate culture emboldens while simultaneously simulating the group effect of an oral culture.
I can totally understand how psuedo-intellectualism or neo-Sophistry can arise under these conditions. Character criticism as pathology is another interesting point that you've brought up.
I think that you are on the right track and that this is a lucid observation.
Perhaps this is caused by a general lack of humility and compassion for ones fellow man. A desire to be right over the desire to learn something new or share ones' knowledge for the benefit of others.
Likewise on the increased clinical info in discussions. It does happen, and is often good but sometimes inaccurate. Either way, it is a subset of conversations - just as many people still just write off mental health struggles as people being assholes. I think having more awareness that a person may be struggling is a good thing. Even if the armchair diagnoses are wrong, seeing past the surface level and trying to understand someone's negative behavior often build better understanding between each other.
As far as everyone having to have an opinion on everything, that is the one point you made that I have not seen in the slightest. Most people I know have disconnected from the constant news/info stream and have no such expectations of each other.
So at the end of the day, yeah you may be yelling at clouds. There is a massive diversity of dialogue and while your points are valid for some of it, you may only be viewing your own silo. But even if it were more widespread... I'm not sure that being more knowledgeable and more communicative will lead to bad things. On the contrary, shallow dismissals, poor communication, and lack of critical thought is exactly how misinformation campaigns work. So if you are seeing higher expectations of people in online dialogue... sounds like a good thing to me.