High-stakes, polarising issues by their very nature raise strong feeliings, making them ‘inflammatory subjects’ by definition.
However, censoring discussion of these issues would lead to a bland, feckless environment where activism and even the discussion of social justice issues is hidden, and the status quo is tacictly endorsed. Which, when the right of marginalised groups is on the line, is horrible injustice by default.
Censoring discussion of certain issues because other people might potentially yell about them is even worse. If I go into /c/chess and start yelling in everyone’s threads, would that make chess an ‘inflammatory subject’ that people should avoid talking about?
Second point:
The tone argument is routinely abused by privileged groups.
It’s easy to have smug, civil, all-friends-here armchair debates on a purely intellectual level, when it’s not your life and the welfare of your children that’s being actively threatened by the outcome.
As such, this forms the basis of a highly disingenuous tactic: Calmly discuss the merits of some hideous proposal, then when you get a lot of angry responses from the people affected by it, point out that it just proves your point: these subhuman oafs aren’t even capable of rational or courteous discussion!
(the above is exaggerated for effect, but not a whole lot - see chapter 5 of The Witch trials of J. K. Rowling (though the entire video is fascinating and you should watch it).
I too am a sysadmin. Fuck the tone argument, alexa play 70s punk rock.