there's this thing called transactional analysis. It was bigger in the 70's but fell out of style, but some of the core concepts are neat. It breaks us into three ego states - the parent, the child and the adult. When we interact with other people, we each take on one of these ego states. In rational conversation we might both take on adult, in play we might both take on child, in learning one person might take on child while another takes on parent. These are learned states that help us quickly determine the power structure of an interaction. I think that when people are in these situations where someone say no, they don't do that thing, it subtly changes the dynamic of the conversation. The first person, the one who offered the thing, sees the transaction as adult to adult. Once the other person says no from a moral standpoint, they are seen as taking a parent role. Now we're in what's called a cross transaction, where one party was expecting a certain ego state but got another. There are really only two reactions to this crossed transaction. The first party could hold fast in their adult ego state and say, "cool", drop the perceived slight and move on. The other option, the option chosen by the loudest of the internet, is to make the transaction even again. They respond to the parent ego state by taking on a child ego state and by throwing a digital temper tantrum. They see the morality of the other person as a characteristic of an adult state and finish the game by taking on a child state. The theory is that this is a remnant of childhood learning. The folks who lash out were, as children, subjugated to moral authority from the parents in their lives (maybe not literal parents, but people who played the role). Once that stance is taken again in their adult lives, they slide from their stance into a child state. I think this is even easier online because the people who yell and fuss use the internet as a playground for their child state, so the transition isn't a state change, but a change of mood for the state they are already in.
I heard about this in regards to religion and people's interaction when religion is on topic. It seems that the default state for being part of a religion, (or I suppose political party) - is that there is a tiny minority which is the adult/dictator - and everyone else is the studious child - nodding and agreeing. There is never (at least from my experience) - any adult to adult interaction, because by definition, the main subject (preacher, person discussing and considering from their own perspective) - has the supreme authority on behalf of the deity, and so they are at the top, and others who are learning from them or arguing with them aren't as enlightened as ones-self. If a religious person with actual belief in the book are talking to a non-believer or person of other religion - then they are the adult and the other is an ignorant child, a child acting like an adult, which needs to be shut down without angering them (from their perspective) If two peers are discussing - then they either have the same belief, and so are both children to the belief or acting as an adult in tandem and everyone else is the child; or if they have differing beliefs, then they are adult-child, and may switch roles at times through the conversation. Thoughts? these are my feelings and experiences~
I think the theory is good for simplifying complex structures for quick understanding, but I also have some personal issue with broad statements that encompass whole groups saying - they are this way. I do agree that the default stance in classical religion can be the parent/child (even to the point for forcing everyone to call the man up front "father") but I don't think that's a default state of religion. In my personal experience I've met adult/adult with holy men and felt respected as a peer. On the other hand, I do stray away from a lot of the organized aspects of religion because of their implicit power structure.
I'd hope to never say anything about large groups of people; I'm only one person with one life's worth of experience and my perspective - and I'm always open to having my views changed, or holding more than one contradicting view at the same time, but this is just my thinking.. It's true that when I say "religion" - simply because of my super-conservative fundamentalist Seventh-day Adventist Christian early life, I automatically sway towards considering organised traditional monotheism.. And I have a bias because I was a teacher and church leader and so I feel like I can see inside the minds, hidden intentions, lies, manipulation and double-think of 'religious' people even though I suppose it's possible that I was an anomaly and I /don't/ know what's going on in other's heads..
Your comment made me think of a pdf I recently came across (through Hubski, Reddit? Not sure), called "The Authoritarians" http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf You might be interested, it talks about some of the things you mentioned.
Psych guy, here! There was a very popular book back in the 60s called *Games People Play" which is based on this.