[moonshinefe]

If your beliefs are correct, you should be able to have a rational debate against someone from the other side and prove your position is correct.

If they won't rationally debate you, sinking to their level and shouting them down / using underhanded means to "win" just puts you on their level and gains sympathy for the other side & hurts your reputation.

Unfortunately, I think that's the main issue that the author is getting at; it's gotten to the point where I can barely tell the far left from the far right anymore in terms of how irrational and sometimes violent they are. It's slogans, it's shouting down, it's even threats or actual violence.

When you disregard civility and resort to those tactics, it's tribalism.

[lbarrett]

I agree that rational debate is good, but in this case the rational debate has to include judgment because the one side of the debate is arguing that the other side (say, racism), is evil. That prevents it from being a perfectly calm, rational debate because the other side ends up (accurately) feeling judged and condemned. That's exactly the thing the author dislikes here--that the people supporting the non-mainstream views on these issues feel that it's not socially acceptable to have those views, so they feel they can't speak up.

So, how can people argue that bigotry is unacceptable and wrong without making it harder for bigots to speak up?

[sewercake]

While I agree with your sentiment, civility should be seen as the optimal method to make political decisions, not the only way. Blind admonition of tactics that don't fall into its camp can lead to a really limited understanding of politics.