On one hand, sure we could all do with some rules on civility.

However, people who support Russian claim to Ukrainian territory (not those that support and end to suffering, there's some nuance there) are, to me, despicable. In the same vein that we must not tolerate intolerance, I don't see that position as a viable position to take.

I'm all for vitriol when pointed at a handful of pre-selected targets. You can hate nazis, you can hate pro-russian pundits, and you can hate the guy who sold Ea-Nasir that bad quality copper in 1750 b.c.

I completely agree that insults like this are "pure mud slinging". As I said elsewhere, I know reddit was basically a rage-engine, generating and thriving on rage, but that's not real discussion. That's "engagement" in the most cynical sense. Real engagement is discussion, back and forth, even with (especially with) disagreements.

I just saw a thread where one person's "contribution" was literally nothing other than trying to combine the same 5 words into different insults in response to reasonable comments. There's a difference between ending your evidence-backed reasoned comment with an insult or derogatory remark, and having the entire content of all of your comments be personal attacks or insults.

I'm unsure how I feel about making a rule around such a thing, because the mere presence of insults is not always enough to declare the comment(er) detracting; when the entirety of someone's comment history is just that, then things become more clear-cut.

I don't want an echo chamber. I want to see dissenting opinions. But I want those dissenting opinions to be in good faith, and not backed by aggression. I don't want to see the content of people whose sole intent is to cause outrage and troll.