I am used to being able to reference things which I perceive as obviously true [..] without needing to couch it in disclaimers.

If something seems obviously true to you and someone disagrees, then either they don't see the obvious truth (i.e. they're "crazy") or your views only seem obvious because they are the ones you are familiar with.

Most people throughout history have seen it as perfectly obvious that the sun revolves around the earth, that the world was put together intentionally by some deity or other, and that our standards of behavior could influence the timing and severity of natural disasters. Most people throughout history have also seen it as perfectly obvious that objects fall when you let go of them, that humans reproduce sexually, and that 2+2=4. The only way to distinguish which of our "obvious" beliefs are true and which are false is to try to examine them as objectively as possible, which is where rationality comes in.

Now some beliefs, like those of UFOlogists dowsers and most theistic religions, can be easily debunked by modern science and as such are not relevant to discuss unless new evidence for them emerges. In general, LW is pretty good about not giving these beliefs space; even the occasional bit of snakeoil you see has some fringe science explanation for why it might work.

Others beliefs, like those of environmentalists libertarians and racial realists, have a plausible scientific justification and cannot be dismissed out of hand; these ideas should be debated so that we can determine their truth value. But that doesn't mean we need to pull punches either; that which can be destroyed by the truth should be, and that destruction goes a lot faster if we expose an idea to light rather than letting it sit unexamined.

As I said before, "[The o]ffensiveness of a statement is largely orthogonal to its truth value, so people looking for the truth shouldn't be afraid to test offensive hypotheses." If you see someone articulating a view which seems insane, finding out why they believe it and engaging it is the only path which will lead you to the truth in the long run.

FWIW, if by "troll" you mean someone who is deliberately looking to start up trouble rather than genuinely trying to engage with the community in some way, I don't think you're a troll.
That said, you're right that I have stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt more generally.

I think my following sentence handled that nicely; etiquette is a concern, but a secondary one.

If your goal is good epistemology, avoiding offense should always lose to making accurate statements when the two conflict. That is almost tautologically true, yet still useful to keep in mind since the two often are at odds with one another.

Agreed, though I would also endorse establishing a culture where a post that explains its reasoning succinctly and logically without devoting additional care to being excruciatingly polite would be considered better than all of the above.

A certain amount of frustration played a part.

Yes, I understand that you only chose to be insulting and rude to us because you were frustrated with us.

I think it likely that the people you are chastising for being insulting and rude to you were frustrated with you, as well.

Anyway, you misread my conclusion. [..] I am saying that [..] Less Wrong failed in its objective. People here aren't any better at discussing emotional topics than on other forums on the internet.

Yes, I understand that this is your main point.

If I try to come up with an example of something that should be agreed upon by any political party, and I come up with "racism is bad", why would you feel the need to question what I mean by that?

Because the phrase "racism is bad" is shorthand that covers a large variety of beliefs. hiding differences in belief with highly emotionalized language. "Racism is bad" is easily used to require or prohibit affirmative action, or require or prohibit drug laws, require or prohibit gun laws, and require or prohibit several forms of economic thought, all without changing the phrase.

I share a position very much similar to the one you've listed, but I've seen people who list the same positions yet feel that they're better served in such by the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, and given some of the response to Schuette, I can't say I can't understand them.

What about someone who believes that people of certain races are more likely to commit crimes, and thus votes for parties that are in favor of limiting immigration?