So in order to solve the problem of moderating PolDisc (which is the root issue that caused everything to go nucking futs) your idea is to nuke all of PolDisc from orbit? Seems like you're shooting pretty wide of the actual problem.
The reason PolDisc got so ugly, in my opinion, was a fetishisation of 'neutral civil discourse' that said it was basically fine to have a board with thread after thread of Goober calling everyone else brainwashed leftist liars and everyone else calling him a Trump-loving loon, and looking in it was clear that this was insanely, pointlessly toxic for everyone involved and the board hosting it. If PolDisc is going to stick around it needs to be a place for discussion of current events and non-confrontational sharing of views where people have enough sense to avoid idiotic fight club threads where they try to own each over other irreconcilable ideological differences.
Is it as odd for you as it is for me that I agree with both of you right now? I think it's because you're identifying the actual source of the problem we had. PH has it right: "Non-confrontational sharing of views" is certainly a major factor that needs to be adhered to. When that fails, mjn hit the nail on the head: "solve the problem of moderating."
I should point out that neither aspects are especially intrinsic to PolDisc. Are they more likely to happen there? Sure. But that's not PolDisc's fault per se. Don't blame the board for people's inability to obey the rules.
Everybody should be responsible for their own civility and respect toward others, no matter what board they're posting to. And when there's a violation of the rules of respect and civility (no matter the board), the matter should be dealt with, and if need be, the guilty parties should be held accountable.
We can preach the value of moderation and rational discourse, but in the end, one side is going to be right. Don't fetishize detachment and disregard. There are subjects on which reasonable disagreement is possible, but there are also subjects which history shows us end up having a right side and a wrong side.
For accuracy's sake, let's just say that with some of these things, there's one side that ends up the winner in a society, and one the loser. It's not all necessarily "right" vs "wrong". Eg. Civil rights? Sure, right/wrong. Gay marriage? Subject to individuals' freedom of beliefs, so let's call it winner/loser. Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan? Possibly a right/wrong situation, but we don't know what would have happened without those wars. Abortions? winner/loser. Climate change? Right/wrong. Covid-19? right/wrong. Pineapple on pizza? right/wrong (it's so, sooo right).