If it's a choice between 1) don't talk about these issues and risk forgoing some minor novel insights on a topic that affects most people's life decisions only very indirectly, 2) talk about these issues in an inoffensive way and risk creating a false consensus of the kind you describe, 3) talk about these issues in an offensive way and risk becoming a hate site (as well as presumably having more blowups), I really would much rather choose 1.

I remember we once had a disagreement about this, but in the meantime I have moved closer to your view.

Basically, the problem is that the idea of a general forum that attempts to apply no-holds-barred rational thinking to all sorts of sundry topics is unworkable. It will either lead to people questioning all kinds of high-status ideological beliefs and purveyors of official truth, thus giving the forum a wacky extremist reputation (and inevitably generating a lot of ugly quarrels in the process) -- or it will converge towards ersatz "rationality" that incorporates all the biases inherent to the contemporary respectable high-status beliefs and institutions as its integral part. What is needed to salvage the situation is a clear statement of what constitutes on-topic discussion, and ruthlessly principled policing of off-topic content no matter what positions it advocates.

But many people don't seem to think you're mistaken, and I don't understand why these people aren't helping me root for option 1.

Basically, it's the ersatz rationality failure mode. People simply assume that the principal contemporary high-status beliefs and institutions are, if somewhat imperfect, still based on rational thinking to a sufficient degree that a rational discussion free of delusion and malice simply cannot result in any really terrible conclusions. So I do think most people think I'm mistaken. (Even if they see some validity in my concerns, they presumably believe that I'm exaggerating either the ugliness of reality or the ideological closed-mindedness and intolerance of the respectable opinion.)

I disagree, however, with your characterization of option (1) as "forgoing some minor novel insights on a topic that affects most people's life decisions only very indirectly." There is plenty of low-hanging fruit in terms of insight from applying unbiased thinking to issues where the respectable opinion is severely delusional. Also, any topic that is truly important for people's life decisions, and where accurate knowledge is of high practical value, is highly likely to involve at least some issues where respectable platitudes and effective advice will be very remote from each other, and no-nonsense talk will be against the social norms.