Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with flaws in the test. Anyway, you're banned so you have time to think about how to argue constructively and without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

It is not new for people to have a natural inclination to want to live amongst and associate with people who were similar to themselves (in ideology or otherwise.)
It is not new for people to take their news from a source which matched their own biases. Consider that in the past, many newspapers did not even pretend to be neutral. Many cities had two rival newspapers, each openly supporting the opposite political party.
It is not new for people, when they debate each other, to tend to simply become further entrenched in the views they already had.
It is not new for people to believe (often correctly) that the other guy's ideology will harm them personally if it is allowed to become public policy.
What is new, is that in the era of the internet, it is far easier than ever before for people to do all of the above faster, easier, and more often, and with fewer pressures against incivility and inflammatory arguments. And since it's so much easier for people to push their agendas on the internet, almost any topic, no matter how innocuous, will become politicized and degenerate into another pissing match.
From there, it's only a few short steps to hating the other guy's arguments on the internet, to hating the other guy himself on the internet, to jumping back into real life and hating him there, too. And it's one more short step to one more aspect of human nature which is definitely not new, the tendency to gang up on and attack the weak. And a good indicator of weakness, even better than being without weapons, is being without backup.

So, I'd say the answer to the original question is "Yes".

If people understand the points I make, disagree and have rational reasons for this then great. We can agree to disagree and if they really make a lot sense they might even be able to convince me to reconsider my own opinions... this has happened a few times and each time my understanding of the political situation in this country and world has expanded greatly.

However, if they only disagree out of ignorance (and this is almost always evident very quickly), I consider it my duty to at least cure them of their ignorance.

I would suggest everyone (1)ignore the consolidated corporate media as 99% of what it spews is total bullshit (2)consider crowdsourced news whenever possible and (3)never rely solely on info from only one point of view... always read and listen to a variety of worldviews and opinions and the truth will be somewhere among them. (4)never trust any source on blind faith but only what you can verify through your own research.

For example, believe it or not.... the Tea Party, the Ron Paul movement and the Occupy movement all intersect on a number of points. Those you can absolutely take to the bank (because the banksters are indeed 100% to blame for most of it). But don't take my word for it... the proof is out there in plain sight.

At any rate, once you understand the true scope of the issues you have a duty to do something about them.... political reform is one of the most important goals in my life at this point and there's no way in fuck I would bury that for anyone, female or otherwise.