I think @GM Capocollo was primarily speaking about THIS thread, and, about the general tendency towards Appeals to Motive that all too often come into play in hotly-contested Suggestions threads. I interpreted his (her?) post as saying that we should discuss the merits of an idea, not why X person had that idea.
It seems to me, too, that many - not all, but many - of the people in that thread did over-react, on both sides of the debate. I'm guilty of that myself, in fact.
... wow. And I thought I had a severe problem misreading the worst into people's posts ... 🤯
Dude(tte), no. Just, no. JB was allowing for the possibility that you grew up in a culture different from that of the U.S. Nothing more, nothing less.
Balderdash.
You called for rules forbidding certain kinds of threads. That is the very definition of censorship: forbidding certain topics or subjects from being discussed.
The problem comes when someone's motives become the fulcrum of opposition to their idea, without first showing that the idea is bad; it's a logical fallacy called Bulverism. In the words of the man who coined the name for that behavior, C.S. Lewis:
"Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant—but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error."