I find much to criticize in this article. The author first decries political opinions he disagrees with and claims that we shouldn't even attempt to reason with those who hold them, then switches to claim that the real problem is political fanaticism and offers guidelines to make speech more civilized.

On the surface, this is a much less damaging suggestion than attempting to actually prevent unpopular opinions from being expressed at all, though I wonder how the author believes the government would attempt to regulate everyday conversations without Orwellian measures.

Finally, the claim that "The gateway drug is interrupting, raising your voice and deliberately misunderstanding interlocutors" needs to be demonstrated. I find it highly unlikely that members of the KKK would retrace their racist views to uncivil debates. What justification does the author have for this belief?