This manifests itself as liberal spectrum people having to adjust their beliefs with new information, while conservative spectrum people mold new information by their currently existing beliefs. That's pretty black and white, and the truth is much more grey, but if you take this as a model for political conversation, I don't think you'll be disappointed very often.

Someone who thinks their priest is the ultimate arbiter of truth will never be able to come to terms with someone who sees contradictions as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

So it's not that it's politically hostile so much as an enforcement of a core axiom of how truth is arrived at and how disputes are resolved -- in particular that contradictions are wrong. "We aren't going to tolerate conservatism where truth comes from priests and godkings or some ecclesiastic structure" seems fine, if not appealing to me.

Liberalism is a walled garden ideology, and conservatives frequently want to enjoy the garden, despite littering the garden with their efforts to dominate rather than reach consensus.

So "politically hostile" while it sounds like a negative isn't. I mean I am politically hostile towards nazis, rashists, and tankies and don't really want to share a forum with them. American conservatives and "y'all qaeda" in particular are rapidly approaching these ultimately fascist and authoritarian political movements.