You can take the dialectic and synthesize an encompassing model. No authority need be accepted. No particular model need be wholly accepted.<p>I can agree, for example, that certain forms of expression can make some people uncomfortable and exclude them from participation, yet not agree with the proposed dictate that all professional groups must now shun anyone who has ever defended such forms of expression. However, if the context of tolerance is expanded beyond such a narrow formulation, then my conclusion is that those forms of expression should also be defended and we should refrain from punishing the actors retroactively. (Even as we ask people to refrain from them in certain contexts.)<p>You can expand such a discussion into emotional, psychological, and historical realms, as well as those of personal experience. It&#x27;s always possible to expand the context of a discussion, since it&#x27;s impossible for a person to understand every context at once.<p>I did this once with my ex-girlfriend&#x27;s right-wing Christian mom. She was willing to listen to the plight of a previous ex-girlfriend&#x27;s family and it changed her outlook. I&#x27;ve also seen it happen with a homophobic woman from rural Oklahoma who became best friends with a gay activist man.<p>It doesn&#x27;t mean you have to agree on everything, but there is an exercise of self-awareness around the ease with which one human can &quot;dehumanize&quot; another in their own mind. Civil society is generally better served by civic discourse and less well served by shunning and actions usually shown to &quot;the enemy.&quot; In fact, the root of social injustice is generally the propensity of people to do this in their minds. (&quot;othering&quot;)<p>I hope that is a good demonstration.