Where is the line? If I make a donation to the Republican party, does that mean I have questionable morals? Roughly half the country is Republican, do they all have no morals?
That is what the article is trying to grapple with.
It's obvious half the country has questionable morals (or at least values or sense). A little under half the voters elected Donald Trump president.
It's a modern analog of a European explorer viewing native Africans as savages because they don't have the same culture and values that you do.
I became a liberal today because liberals took the time to have civil conversations me about my intolerance, and I realized that liberals were right. I am grateful to the people who did that for me, and I want to extend the same courtesy to others.
Pragmatically, if liberals had ostracized me or "canceled" me, it's quite likely that I would still hold those intolerant views today. By taking the stance that "we don't talk to Republicans", liberals are cutting off the only mechanism by which Republicans become liberals. And those people who you alienate instead of converting become angry, and that anger motivates them to go to the polls. Do you want Trump to get re-elected? Because what you're doing is contributing to Trump getting re-elected.
My guess is that ~80% of the US believes that this is true.
Just because someone disagrees with you or has different priorities or ideals doesn't make them bad people. If anything, this says more about you than it does about them.
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/events/unfollow-deradicalization...
I would say that isolating people definitely does not work.
The Westboro Baptist Church has been held up as an example of the "radical" Christian right for over 10 years. They know that they are reviled and play it up to keep getting attention. Meanwhile, if you read the stuff that Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal wrote (both are mentioned in this article) - it's clear that they both thought they were not taking positions that are out of the mainstream liberal view of acceptability. And if you talk to people who would not consider themselves "woke" they would find their writings to be very tame as well. This is why this situation is so interesting - these so-called "radicals" didn't begin to consider themselves different until they were suddenly isolated for expressing things that didn't seem very radical at all.
Even if that was just a hastily/poorly chosen analogy, there's still a point to be made: groups of powerful, immoral people do not stay on the sidelines of society for long.
(You know you have a problem when even Barack Obama is stepping up and criticizing "woke" people: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261)
And then they go on to ignore his advice because he is insufficiently left. Which ironically proves how prescient his advice is.
I mean, he's not particularly leftist, is he? If anything he represents a pretty centrist liberal (as in Liberalism) position?