I think this is intrinsic in any community of thinkers who are focused on optimality/rationality/etc in general, because inevitably people will feel differently on a given issue, and then everyone goes around blaming the other group that they aren't really rational or optimal, etc.

That is at least "inevitable" in groups that habitually mistake feelings for something objective.

That being said, identifying optimal, mainstream positions of a given philosophy is absolutely good for the philosophy per se.

Good grief, how can you do that when there is no agreement about what optimal means?