On any site, putting aside comments by ten year olds, comment content is subjective. For example, I judge every leftist site to be moronic, but others may disagree.
Is the word 'moronic' necessary when describing a political perspective with which you disagree? And the verb 'judge'.
This almost proves the point, which is that debate and discussion are hardly possible when the starting point is utter contempt for those who differ with you.
MacRumors PRSI is surprisingly bad. It's a step up from YouTube and Fox News, but only slightly -_-
I am not sure whether this is down to the fact that the internet is such a new - comparatively speaking, - form of communication that an etiquette of what is appropriate online conduct has not yet evolved.
Equally, I am unsure whether it can be ascribed to the safe cloak of anonymity afforded by the internet, which offers a feeling of safety which face to face communication would deter.
Or, whether the freedom of instant communication serves to encourage the idea that anyone with a keyboard and a thought can consider themselves the equal of those who spent years mastering the topic in question.
Or, for that matter, whether it is due to the blurring of the 'public space' and 'the private space'.
Or, more to the point, whether, politics and religion give rise to challenges asking questions of core issues of identity, and how one defines the self, and thus questions and differences are translated internally as attacks, but, yes, paying a visit to the PRSI forums here can be quite an intense experience at times.