I reeealy can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not[1]
I find all comment sections are easier to read if you imagine that everyone is being ironic and mocking the type of person that would actually have those beliefs.
There is a dichotomy on the internet between those who believe that the most emotionally powerful argument wins, and those who believe that if you use emotion in an argument you can be automatically discounted.
The two sides find it very hard to discuss things, and I think there is a natural tendancy for any discussion forum to gravaitate towards the emotive. Those that like unemotive discussion tend to withdraw once people start shouting, or they join in the shouting. Possibly because it's very easy to turn a rational discussion into an emotive one, but very hard to go from emotive to rational.
It reminds me of the opposite of evaporation, whereby the hotter the discussion gets, the less likely cold agents are to contribute, thereby increasing the heat of the discussion.
I value quality in comments, which is one of the reasons I come to Hacker News. It is not a waste of my time. Reading comments on Facebook or any newspaper usually is.
Wikipedia isn't a waste either, mired in a Yahoo Answers low quality answers. That is why I donate.
Creating quality interaction isn't easy on the internet - I admire every success.
Shitposting in the comment-section of a newspaper or indeed Hacker News isn't "free speech", it is just disruptive and destructive.
When governments and corporations engage in bullshit (in the Harry Frankfurt sense) programs to disrupt public discourse, the answer isn't to yell and scream in the comment sections - that only helps them, in fact. The answer is to insist on solid arguments against their gish-gallops and red herrings.