The reality is that it's bad science and even worse philosophy. This stuff, like frankly all the rationalist nonsense, suffers from very highly motivated reason

The reality is that it's bad science and even worse philosophy. This stuff, like frankly all the rationalist nonsense, suffers from very highly motivated reasoning. The author isn't asking questions he's already decided on the answers and is now looking to justify his ideology. I suspect this is why rationalists are very careful to avoid actual philosophers. Philosophers make short work of this sort of simplistic thinking. People who really want to understand, say, the meta-ethics of modern democracy and debate are much better of reading Plato, Foucault and Rawls. Then you'd understand that sophism cannot be so easily dismissed because it is in fact pee pure sophism to say that certain arguments are "social shaming" and therefore not good arguments. The entire construction here -- the assumption that there is a single right answer to every argument and it can be arrived at if both sides are just reasonable enough and set aside their social biases -- is, as Foucault would show, a highly suspect assertion born of a very privileged position. People who seriously buy in to these sorts of simplistic models are going to have a bad time. Try having a "rational" debate with a Jewish person about whether all Jews should be exterminated. You might dismiss the response as "social shaming" and accuse them off being "triggered" and emotional... but such a victory won't buy you much.