IT was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness. Dickens was extraordinarily prescient in his opening to A Tale of Two Cities and there has never been a better time to reacquaint oneself with his masterful recognition and satirical take-down of the absurdity of extremes.

Written in 1859, harking back to France’s Reign of Terror, it is also a sobering reminder of what can happen when nuance is removed from public discourse. And unfortunately, dear reader, there is much to worry about these days on that score.

Read more: SNP declares war on cybernats

Nowhere do we see it more than on social media. With this in mind, I applaud unequivocal attempts by prominent SNP figures, as outlined in yesterday’s Herald, to denounce the online abuse spat out by some on their side of the constitutional debate, not just at opponents of independence, but anyone who dares say or tweet something, no matter how innocuous, that doesn’t chime entirely with their world view. Describing such keyboard warriors as “weird”, “creepy”, “poisonous”, “vicious” “cowards”, former party deputy Angus Robertson, MP Stewart McDonald and MEP Alyn Smith are absolutely right to point out that such trolling, bullying and harassment – much of it aimed specifically at women – is not only out of order, but ultimately damaging to the cause they support.

If anyone is in any doubt about the form this sort of intimidation takes, you need only look at last week’s bullying of BBC Scotland journalist Emma Clifford Bell. Researching a piece about Dundee’s reaction to Nicola’s Sturgeon’s announcement on a possible second independence referendum, she did her job and appealed on social media for a pro-Union voice to appear among a “variety of opinions” – including pro-independence supporters – to be featured in the package. What followed was a pile-on of epic and bizarre proportions, as hundreds jumped on the bandwagon and accused her of bias, told her to “f*** off ”, that she was “scum”, a “clown of a lassie” and a “stupid bint”.

Primarily, this is a very personal – not to mention sexist – attack on Ms Clifford Bell. But it also represents a worrying and increasingly common assault on the act and process of journalism itself, a wilful misunderstanding of what journalists do, a knowing conflation of news and comment, a perpetuation of the warped idea that “good” journalism is what I agree with, and “bad” journalism is everything else.

Read more: SNP declares war on cybernats

More than anything, it reflects a worrying lack of critical thinking. Indeed, some of the responses to those who criticised the bad behaviour are as grim as the initial attack; blaming the victim, whataboutery and reeling off old complaints about BBC presenters only makes it worse. Who’d want to share a movement, let alone a country – independent or not – with these people?

Ms Clifford Bell’s experience is a depressing sign of the times that reflects a more general willingness to trade critical thinking for the ease of conspiracy theories, righteous anger, having a platform, and a sense of identity and community, even if the latter is based on nothing more than the precarious idea of a shared enemy.

At the same time, the power and reach of social media also attracts those looking to monetise certain views, not to mention nefarious organisations and even foreign states whose main aim is to stir up trouble. And since the current system encourages anonymity and duplicity, it can be hard to work out who or what is even real.

The so-called ‘Cybernats’ exist in a relatively tiny corner of social media, of course, their vitriol matched by those shouting about other extreme world views, most notably “Brit Nats”, Hard Brexiteers, Trump supporters and white supremacists.

They’re all equally unsavoury, flourishing by using OTT, hysterical narratives to pinpoint and frame their attacks, often choosing to personally abuse the target in the process; humiliate, intimidate and crush.

Since they shout so loud, the ‘Cybernats’ often succeed in getting the attention they crave, which in turn exaggerates how representative their views are within the Yes movement, thus turning off more moderate supporters and potential new recruits to the cause.

Depressingly, that’s why I think it will be so difficult for Messrs Robertson, McDonald and Smith to change anything. The attack dogs do so knowingly, in order to deliberately provoke attention, or are so far down the unthinking zealot road as to be beyond reach. What both have in common is that the more they insult, the easier it becomes.

Such abuse has nothing to do with independence per se, but the damage for the wider Yes movement will be harder to disassociate.

The appeal for nuance and persuasion comes at a time when both seem out of fashion, while extreme language pulses and trends through our discourse.

Those of us looking for comfort should perhaps turn back to Dickens. At the very least, A Tale of Two Cities reminds us that nothing – not even the worst of times - lasts forever.