It is when people try to force their opinions or beliefs on others, and become aggressive and/or offensive when people do not agree, is when things get ugly.
Is a recitation of a known fact 'aggressive'? What if someone is (or claims to be) 'offended' by a fact, or the presentation of something as a fact? The 'fact' can be examined, declared to not be a 'fact', etc. -- but is the submission of the 'fact' already meet the definition of 'aggression'? How do you 'force' someone via the Internet to believe what you believe? Is merely expressing an opinion 'aggressive', too?
By the nature of politics and religion, the opinions are inherently forced onto others
With respect to you Input Nirvana, I think it is perfectly possible to have a stimulating, intelligent discussion about religion and/or politics without 'forcing' your opinion on someone else. The problem here is that people who have very weak arguments, or no stomach to defend their position would rather see the discussion end, period. And this talk of being 'forced' to witness a political discussion. It feels like someone walking into the Adult Section of a videostore and being horrified by the porno covers and titles but
staying behind the beaded curtain to gawp and screech and complain. Stay out of that section and your likelihood of seeing midget porn is much lower.
My theory is that some of these topics start well, and then get trolled by users who don't like seeing particular opinions expressed, so they join the thread, drop some insults into the discussion, and then remain to display their rustled jimmies. The way I see it, these people are threadcrapping -- the political discussion was getting somewhere and then they arrived to make sure it devolved into name-calling.
