One gets the sense that internet people are very bad at understanding how Schelling points work.

It’s not inconsistent or incoherent to say “Thing X should be banned, but not Things Y or Z, because of distinguishing factors A and B and C.”  But this works, as a consensus rallying-point, only if a sizeable majority of the people actually buy into the principle that underlies the distinction that you’re making.  You can’t usefully fudge this one – you won’t get too far saying “well, we at least all hate Thing X, and this lets us clamp down on it, so basically we all agree” – because your “allies” will almost immediately try to use the precedent to get rid of further things that they hate.  If you try to resist, there will be dissension, and it’ll be clear that you don’t have a commanding influence, and the pro-Thing-X people will come rushing back with a vengeance trying to exert their own sociopolitical influence.  

“We absolutely won’t ban anything, no ifs, ands, or buts” is not necessarily the best policy, or even the most stable one, in all circumstances.  But it does have one huge advantage shared by nothing else: by not singling anyone out, it avoids creating a defensive cohort invested in ginning up political attacks on the rule.  In purely pragmatic terms, if you’re going to start banning things, you’d be well advised to make sure – not only that there’s a strong majority in favor of doing so – but that there’s a strong majority willing to acknowledge a qualitative difference between the thing you’re banning and the other things you don’t want to ban.  Otherwise you’ve signed up for endless warring over where the line is drawn, and you’re sunk.