That's quite recent. Instant feedback, starting with the 24-hour news cycle and ending with social media clicks, brought on the bomb-throwers. In the 80s and 90s it was not unusual to pick up the paper and read an informed, cogent, well-reasoned essay about some topic that few readers might be interested in (and most might disagree with). All that's gone now, however. It's all just clan-based emotion-driven click-bait and grenade-throwing now.

I said I scan a ton of commentary. It used to be (ten years or more ago) that the majority would be, well, opinion pieces. Now only 5-10% or so are actually opinion pieces. Most of the time it's just cheerleading to people with more and more invective about things the audience already agrees with. There's really little value to be had.

There are surely some people these days who approach things like this, and they come from both political polarities. But as DanielBMarkham points out nearby, it hasn't always been this way.

And even today, there are plenty of people who, I think, strive for finding truth (e.g., Scott Alexander, Megan McArdle)

If someone reads an opinion piece and changes their mind, is that not thinking?

Also, what you're saying is your opinion, are you trying to get people on your side? Is your goal in writing a comment here today is to stop people from thinking?

I read this as "I didn't agree with what he wrote; therefore he was trying to convince people that good is bad and wrong is right".