The online mob fear is the result here. The source is people judging others by their morals (as people have for some time) and those shifting morals. It always

The online mob fear is the result here. The source is people judging others by their morals (as people have for some time) and those shifting morals. It always goes back to that, which is what is causing the increasing divide in the US that then results in the growing power in these mobs. The problem with that is that all of these arguments are clearly colored by what moral side the author is on. The author focused on Damore, but didn't mention the dozens of Google employees harassed and sent death threats online for being against his memo. The article is clearly coming from the perspective of conservative thoughts being reprimanded online, but lightly tries to hide behind the guise of generality. The "fear" is not felt on all sides really. The level of inconsistency is another source of the divide on both sides. I think people need to be more willing to follow logic they use for their own beliefs and apply it to other issues and perspectives. Edit: Not just follow the logic, but speak out about the issues in the same way. When someone uses logic X for issue Y and speaks out about it, but fails to speak out against issue Z when X is also applicable is a huge problem. It's usually one of the easiest ways to see through someone's beliefs when they try to be "objective". It's often even more obvious when Y is a much smaller issue in scope than Z. If you believe in logic X, how much you advocate/support each issue should be in proportion to the size of their scopes when X applies to both.