[tungstenfurnace]

>I can be upset and angry and still participate in a rational discussion.

The problem is that it would only take a few people who can't remain rational for a tipping point to be reached whereby the overall quality of debate badly degrades. (That's when some of the most valuable contributors start to disappear.)

>What will we do when an issue is both important and divisive

If such a political issue affected hackers directly then there'd be no way to avoid that discussion.

>Do we want to prevent, to silence, discussion?

Of course not. And that's precisely why politics in general should be avoided.

Aside from the eve psych, I'm with Eliezer Yudkowsky on this:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

[rbanffy]

"a few people who couldn't manage that"

That's what downvotes are for. That's why we should refrain from downvoting for disagreement and keeping it for shorting out comments that are damaging to the discussion.