I know you say that you don't want to end up with "ignore any discussion that contains contradictions of the lesswrong scriptures", but it sounds a bit like that. (In particular, referring to stuff like "properly sequenced LWers" suggests to me that you not only think that the sequences are interesting, but actually right about everything). The sequences are not scripture, and I think (hope!) there are a lot of LWers who disagree to a greater or lesser degree with them.

For example, I think the metaethics sequence is pretty hopeless (WARNING: Opinion based on when I last read it, which was over a year ago). Fortunately, I don't think much of the discussion here has actually hinged upon Eliezer's metaethics, so I don't think that's actually too much of an issue.

I'm not even that worried about a convinced Yudkowsky disciple "righteously wielding the banhammer"; I suspect people making intelligent points wouldn't get banned, but you seem to be suggesting that they should be ignored.

Perhaps a more constructive approach would just be to list any of the particularly salient assumptions you're making at the start of the post? e.g. "This post assumes the Metaethics sequence; if you disagree with that, go argue about it somewhere else"