Listen to yourself! You no sooner tell Jim that he's stifling debate than you proceed to suggest what kinds of threads he might consider banning. Do you shave in two mirrors so you can see both faces at the same time?
This is the very essence of the struggle this site undergoes. Some self-righteous prig decides that a particular viewpoint doesn't have the right to be heard, so he demands that it be squelched. He doesn't argue the points or defeat the logic, he goes whining to the teacher because little Billy pinched him. But when Billy whines to the teacher, then he cries "censorship" and "bias," and refuses to do his homework.
If we can't tolerate controversy better than this, we'll never be a force to be reckoned with. Remember, the strength of a principle is not measured by the ease of its application, but by its breadth.
He might consider? Are you aware that he has done so in the past?
There is no hypocrisy here: There's a huge difference between stifling dissent and staying on-topic. I believe quelling the first is fatal, and maintaining the second is vital. If the place exploded with home decorating tips or a floating bridge game or pet grooming advice or get-rich-quick schemes, I'd expect someone to jump on it pronto.