On the substantive issue being discussed in this very difficult but interesting thread, I suppose nowadays I tend to lean towards those who try to work with, and even within, flawed and corrupt systems, to try to change them for the better, because evolutionary change seems to me much more common these days than revolutionary change and it can be a driver of revolutionary change as well. Whereas opting out and complaining is an awful lot easier and more satisfying, but all too often it seems to achieve nothing - what really matters is not ideological purity but what is effective in achieving change.
But as far as lecturing and insulting and being disrespectful of opposing views is concerned, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me to fight fire with fire. That fatally undermines the whole argument. If you complain about somebody for throwing accusations around and insulting people and you do so in a way that does exactly the same thing to those you're berating, don't kid yourself that you occupy the moral high ground - that in itself is building walls rather than bridges. Trying to make points about other people's aggressive behaviour without ending up imitating them requires a lot of self-discipline - if you can't do that, don't even try because you'll inevitably only make things worse.
Ultimately how I see any debate like this is that there is always a spectrum of opinion amongst those who oppose anything, and that situation is created by any strong and polarising viewpoint. In this case, the application of reactionary concepts like 'psychosomatism' and 'functional disorders' to a chronically ill population has a tendency to polarise that population in a range of different opinions in opposition to it. (The right physics analogy is eluding me right now, but if someone can describe this in terms of electromagnetic forces, preferably using the term 'repulsive' for the original cause of the polarised spread of opinion, that would be much appreciated).
In resistance to any objectionable force, there will always be those who try to collaborate and influence and move things gradually in the right direction, those who oppose and object vociferously and try to stand apart from the 'tainted' forces in what they do, but thereby have relatively little influence on the corridors of power - and a spectrum of stances in between. Everything works like that in politics, and I suspect that any movement for change needs both approaches. My main concern is that all those who are opposed to the problems that create the polarisation, wherever they sit on the spectrum, should always be trying to work together rather than against each other, and building bridges between each other rather than walls - and that's always a two-way street, both sides are always responsible for this - because the more divided we are, the less effective we are. Everybody, on all sides of this argument, is responsible for their own behaviour and should always try to keep their mind set on what we are trying to achieve. We have a much better chance of achieving it together than we do fighting amongst ourselves - and the least we can do is to try hard to be respectful of those who take a different approach to the problem.
