Is your concern answered by ensuring that the default experience of a forum is moderated, until someone explicitly takes off the covers? Otherwise I can't fathom where you disagree with GP.
What does that mean? Comments with certain tone set the mood anyway. That's how it works in general. It's just you'd prefer "certain" moods over others
Then pick a different medium. A single tabloid doesn't tarnish every single news industry. Rude mailing lists don't invalidate private email conversations. Also, conference calls are a thing.
Anyway, analogies are imperfect, please look in the direction where I am gesturing, not at my exact words.
The point here (and of the entire conversation) is that you shouldn't judge a medium by its worst imaginable actors as long as you're given the right tools that allow you to use that medium undisturbed, effectively putting them into a different silo.
Today twitter allows a very crude, imperfect approximation of this by following people that post decent content and setting the homepage to "latest posts" instead of "top tweets". Ideally we'd have better tools than that.
But the thing is, there's no "outrage Twitter" that's distinct from "calm Twitter." There's just Twitter. Since the value of a social network is in its population, the natural inclination will be towards a reduction of networks, not a proliferation of them.
