One possibility would be to deplore it, disengage from it, and to refuse to participate in it. This would be self-righteous and hypocritical. None of us is free from sadistic impulses, all of us frequently feel angry and contemptuous of those with whom we disagree on political issues. Moreover, we can be sure that by insisting on adherence to bourgeois standards of decorum we will marginalize ourselves into total insignificance. Clearly, flaming wins votes.
People enjoy reading and listening to flames.
Hypocritical rejection of flame culture will lead only to obscurity. On the other hand, the historical connections between political flaming and violence suggest that this is a medium which must be handled with care. It seems to me that this can only be done by applying postmodern insights into the distinction between the writing subject and the real person. It must be clearly understood that to abuse someone's discourse is not the same thing as abusing the person. The category of 'ad hominem', in other words, must be seen to apply only to the authorial persona, and in no way to the actual human being.