Pretending you can ignore politics in any discussion other than a technical seminar about compiler optimization is in itself a political position: you are supporting the people who can afford to ignore politics at the expense of those who can't, endorsing the status quo whatever that happens to be.
This post is about people who are worried about being banned/being banned from the country who previously could enter and how YC is trying to help them. It's an explicitly political post. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it.
I don't find them unfruitful. I find them quite fruitful and enjoy and learn from political discussions with others. The problem with them is that they are not scientific or technical questions, and this forum is populated by a lot of people who naturally tend to look at things from a science perspective -- that there is a correct answer, and we just need to arrive at it. A discussion is only 'fruitful' if it gets us closer to that goal.
There isn't a correct answer in humanities/politics but that doesn't stop some answers from being very bad, and some answers being better than others, or from some answers being interesting and insightful and valuable regardless of how 'correct' they are.
There's definitely a range of quality in politics discussions though and the barrier for entry to having an opinion is very, very low unlike technical discussions -- it's very easy for it to quickly sink to the lowest form of human interaction that you're describing -- Breitbart, 4chan, youtube comments, /r/politics, etc. I find HN is markedly better than that almost all of the time.
And your quote isn't even so horrible. Pointing out problems with a particular point of view if new can be enormously insightful and helpful.
Consensus isn't a reasonable goal or even desirable when you're discussing things which are more complex than, say, cut and dried technical facts. I can achieve consensus among mathematicians by providing a proof. I can achieve consensus among scientists by performing repeated experiments. I can achieve consensus among philosophers by, well, killing all the other philosophers. But if I don't do that, I can learn a lot and better develop my own positions and thoughts by having discussions with them even if I'll never force them to agree with me.
You don't have to particularly care for 'soft' discussion and reasoning, but that's not a problem with it, it's a personal preference of yours which is extremely uncommon among the general population, however over represented it is on HN. Every discussion about anything nontechnical has this 'soft' property.
This post is about people who are worried about being banned/being banned from the country who previously could enter and how YC is trying to help them. It's an explicitly political post. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it.