Mealy-mouthing about the details of irrelevant philosophies attending the main event is part of a larger game you're heading into, and you need to be straight about basics lest you grow confused and vulnerable in the literal battles which will come. Therein lies the argument for our rather desperate need to engage in civil discourse. Not because nasty words make a few tender souls feel bad, but because they invariably lead to things that make everyone feel bad. Much is made of the need to learn from the experiences of World War II and the myriad ritual carnages before and after it. What we're not even close to learning is that supposedly trivial things like a computer discussion group, when multiplied to a level of thousands of ideologues shouting past one another in rising fury, are exactly how wars get started.
Ideological arguments are the vehicle to conflict and scorn is their fuel.
One acrimonious group with closed minds and open mouths motivated by fear is no more than a pebble on the slope. Of itself it poses little danger, might cause the body social to lurch a bit if stepped on. At some point, the slide into oblivion cannot be recalled. How better it is not to let it start. Curse not the darkness, for you thereby add to it.