<i>&gt; That&#x27;s all well and good for some opinions; I&#x27;m not advocating being polite to, say, neo-Nazis who are denying the Holocaust or advocating genocide. But people rapidly expand X to &quot;whatever I disagree with,&quot; and the result is that we treat disagreement on legitimate, reasonable issues that people will naturally disagree on as equivalent to endorsing genocide and believing that the Holocaust didn&#x27;t happen.</i><p>This is the core problem: what is &quot;legitimate and reasonable&quot; and what is closer to neo-Nazis (to pull your example)?<p>Painting a target on myself here for the sake of illustration: I am a Christian, and I believe in the literal truth of the Bible. This means, for example, that I believe homosexuality is a sin. (which, for the sake of clarification, does <i>not</i> mean that I hate other humans who are gay).<p>Where does that put me on the spectrum from &quot;legitimate, reasonable issues&quot; to &quot;neo-Nazi&quot;? The answers to that vary far and wide, and the way I get treated online varies accordingly.<p>I&#x27;ve been treated as another person at the conversational table (&quot;so why do you think that?&quot;, &quot;what does that mean for how you treat others?&quot;), and I&#x27;ve been told I&#x27;m &quot;objectively a terrible person&quot; (and much worse) for believing what I do.<p>The problem is often less &quot;how do I treat people who have reasonable disagreements with me&quot; and more &quot;what constitutes a reasonable disagreement?&quot;