It's only on pseudonymous mega-sites like Twitter, Reddit and HN where jumping down people's throats for having an opposing viewpoint is even a thing.
You only see videos of the out of control ones because they're the weird ones.
If you only view the world through the snippets that are noteworthy enough to make headlines or get a lot of votes on Reddit, you end up with a very skewed view of what the world is like.
I think this very much depends on where you live. I'm not responding to reddit videos, I'm responding to events that my family and some friends who are in public education.
In the real world it's a bit more nuanced because people care more about conflict in the real world. But even so there's usually a core group of people with similar beliefs and outsiders are pushed away.
In the corporate world conflicting viewpoints in e.g. religion or politics are generally dealt with by making talking about them taboo or explicitly banning it.
When you don't do that you get the mess that Google has found itself in several times recently where someone makes some comment that the majority disagree with (positive discrimination is bad, AI is sentient, etc) and other employees call for them to be fired.
I can't think of many groups that actually manage to get people with opposing viewpoints to get on with each other without just banning talking about them. Universities maybe. The army perhaps?
https://coralproject.net/blog/five-myths-of-community-design...
There is a massive difference between me seeing a stranger's real name next to a Facebook post about how abortion is evil, and me having a conversation with a good friend of 10 years, or my mom, and it comes up that they're pro-life.
We might have a long debate, but in the end, they're still my friend or family.