Johnny, you've raised some very important points about the role of nuance amidst these discussions. But, let's be honest, here: individuals from multiple sides will attempt to inject their feelings into issue-based discourse for different reasons...and with different motivations. No "one side" ever has a monopoly over good faith.

When tackling the matter of solving a problem at hand, here's what I think is a basic rubric that can be followed:

-- who, if anyone, is affected most pointedly by the issue?

-- who, if anyone, are secondary stakeholders (e.g. bystanders, or people who have emotional connections to those most affected) in terms of the issue's impact?

-- what extent of consensus already exists, in terms of available solutions?

-- are there alternate variations of solutions that could be employed?

-- what is the desired outcome that will benefit those who are victimized by the problem at hand?

-- what is the most effective way in which the desired outcome can be communicated to those least affected by the issue?

-- is anyone objecting to discussion of the issue at hand while lacking any concrete proposals for solutions?

-- if you are dismissing someone's proposal as being a byproduct of "hurt feelings," what is your evidence for the allegation you've just made? Is such evidence based on your own prejudices or assumptions?

-- what's the worst-case scenario we can envision, if a given consensus solution is employed...and are there ways to partially mitigate those unintended circumstances from the onset?

Obviously, the nature of some problems will be more complex than others might, so it can take a longer/shorter amount of time to work through the rubric. But you get the idea.