I disagree. I think it has a great deal to do with part of western society -- particularly, the rhetorical strategies that social movements of the left have deliberately adopted.<p>Sure enough, just about anyone can get caught in the idea &quot;Well, if my opponent thought about it, then surely they&#x27;d agree with me. They don&#x27;t agree with me, so therefore they&#x27;re not thinking people, and I need to use something other than reason to make them change their mind.&quot; But the difference is that the left are currently much more willing then to apply theories of social norms instead of arguments.<p>Terms such as &quot;climate denier&quot;, &quot;evolution denier&quot;, &quot;free-thinker&quot; (you wouldn&#x27;t want to disagree with our opinion on religion, and show you&#x27;re not a free thinker, now would you?), etc, were coined deliberately for rhetorical effect. Similarly, social movements on the left are usually quicker to play the game of rhetorical escalation. Can I find some rhetoric by which to portray my opponent&#x27;s opinion as &quot;sexist&quot; or &quot;ignorant&quot;? So that regardless of what their reasoning is, the pressure to avoid being <i>socially viewed</i> as ignorant is an incentive for them to change their mind.