Obviously opposing views are allowed to exist.
I don't know how shaming can even be measured objectively. What makes you feel shamed? The fact that someone downvoted you? Thats merely the expression of someone's opposing views... (I did not downvote your comments btw)
There is no "the" discussion. There is a discussion consisting of commenter beliefs, and then responses challenging beliefs.
You classified some beliefs as political as opposed to technical.
Lets define 'technical' as relating to matters of fact.
Lets define 'political' as relating to selection of options.
i.e. technical statements are positive statements, and political statements are normative statements.
Every technical discussion contains tradeoffs. Tradeoffs are the source of political disagreement: when the family needs a new car, the tradeoff could be price, performance, appearance,... and the husband and wife will not in general agree. The technical tradeofff generates the political difference.
In the example I gave, some people prefer cryptocurrencies, other people prefer nuclear energy, there is no objective technologically superior future. There is only the choice among viable futures. In democracy politics should belong to us all.
Nobody is censoring you (nor me!)
If I were forced to define shaming, it would be something like: a behaviour where the perpetrator(s) make an appeal to a groups supposed definitions of virtues/sins, to change the groups perception of the victim(s).
In order to identify any such thing in this thread, I first need to identify the group: hacker news users. From reading your comments I think you (wrongly) believe the cliche "we come here for technology, we dislike politics" Then I read your posts where you identify anti-nuclear ideas as political vs pro-nuclear technologies as technological. So it seems you are the one who is shaming anti-nuclear ideas.
I am not appealing to any group virtues or sins here, and if I did I would not classify "politics" as the sin, since I regularly see people discuss tradeoffs and how they feel about it.
Btw, I am not against nuclear energy in any absolute way:
we may need nuclear power for space travel, why burn it up here and now? [no, its not in nature decaying at the same rate as we use it up, in a reactor we promote radioactive decays]
research reactors are extremely important to have for scientific progress, and cryptocurrencies are very promising for humanity too, perhaps governments should simply have a clear public policy promising to neutralize any plane [passengers or not] coming too close to a reactor or surface-storage of radioactive materials: this would decrease the probability of attempted hijackings.
I think we can both agree that nuclear reactors would ideally be aneutronic, from a waste perspective, can we not focus on that instead?
If we ignore the waste threat there is still the centralized dependency threat: irrespective if it is downtime, sabotage by employees, accidents, vulnerability during war, ...
With all this on top, I think it is not crystal clear to all of us that alternative energy sources are more expensive.