I think this fracturing of SO into a 'subjective' and 'non-subjective' version is the worst idea since New Coke. Its idealogical nonsense in the face of what made SO great, i.e. a sense of community and the improving thereof. What was unworkable about stucking 'subjective' tags on subjective questions and letting people who wanted to participate in an active discussion of subjective topics do so, leaving people who didn't with the ability to stick 'subjective' in their list of ignore tags? One minute spent by a user trying to decide if a question should be on Programmers or SO is about 59 seconds too many. I've watched questions come in on SO in realtime and participated in closing down the egregiously stupid or redundant ones, of which there are quite a few. I don't see how it could have been such an insurmountable burden to stick subjective tags in the actual subjective questions at the same time.
FYI, this is NOT a duplicate of 'what the difference between this and SO?'. This is 'what was actually broken in SO?'
Update: So my question is an exact duplicate of a question that has been closed as an exact duplicate of a question which I explicitly said is not what I'm asking? The blog post referenced in the top response to that question seems to me to boil down to 'I don't like meta-tags'. So I reiterate... aside from being annoying to some subset of users, what was wrong with meta tags as a division of questions? There are always going to be N dimensions along which we could divide questions. Just because some of those dimensions feel unnatural to some people isn't a good enough reason to split the site (even if that someone is one of the site founders).