You seem to be making the argument that someone who uses shaming language to impose their ideological/religious is should not be responded to in kind.
I obviously disagree; smearing a veneer of civility over thought-policing does not make that thought policing any more acceptable.
> You're literally condeming them for having different moral beliefs than you right now,
You also appear to be claiming that, when being policed by puritans, one should politely put up with it. I also disagree - I don't think puritanical holier-than-thou comments deserve more civility than they give.
> I wonder how you feel the optics of this reflects on you, because I don't think it's good for you.
People pointing out thought-policing always look good ;-)
The ones who are crusading for it tend to look bad. I'm not too worried.
I obviously disagree; smearing a veneer of civility over thought-policing does not make that thought policing any more acceptable.
> You're literally condeming them for having different moral beliefs than you right now,
You also appear to be claiming that, when being policed by puritans, one should politely put up with it. I also disagree - I don't think puritanical holier-than-thou comments deserve more civility than they give.
> I wonder how you feel the optics of this reflects on you, because I don't think it's good for you.
People pointing out thought-policing always look good ;-)
The ones who are crusading for it tend to look bad. I'm not too worried.