Listen, I think you’re saying some really important things here about political correctness and moral grandstanding. I also think that you are correct to call out the “New Leftism”’s utopian desires for an impossible equilibrium. But you seem to not point out that that the exact same fundamentalism exists on the other side of the barricade— this is not in name of any left/right balance or equidistance, but just because the “evangelical marketing” you speak of is something that is as strong as — if not stronger — on the “New Rightism”, when “freedom of speech” is misunderstood for “forcing your ideas on those who do not espouse them”. And when you pull up the fact that there are millions of people struggling for basic sanitation while people worry about the meaning of words, you are reducing the value of thought experiments to a purely utilitarian construct that has no significance in the real world. This to me is an incredibly dangerous position, for it suggests that only that which serves a clear purpose should be welcomed into the conversation. (Even if that’s not what you’re meaning.) While you are making an incredibly clear case for pluralism of views and the need to refuse political correctness, you are also opening the door to refutations of pluralism coming from a very narrow conception as opposed to what should by its own nature be very wide — and that is very disturbing to me, since I always thought that pluralism is by necessity open and inclusive.