There's a scale of disagreement and responses I see in people. Discomfort You can agree, and accept the evidence of something. And yet still say in good faith

There's a scale of disagreement and responses I see in people. Discomfort You can agree, and accept the evidence of something. And yet still say in good faith that you don't "go along" with that. My favourite idiom is when French people say "Sure, But that's not my philosophy". Personal philosophy is considered of equal importance to "scientific"/observed truth and expressing discomfort is okay. An example might be "AI being able to write poems as well as people". Even if a study shows that nobody can tell the machine from the poet, one can still say "I am not okay with that fact". The discontent makes no effort to challenge, except maybe personal withdrawal or denial. Scepticism This is healthy. Indeed it's part of the scientific method. We should always tolerate and maybe encourage sceptical thinking. The sceptic debates and disputes. But the sceptic is still open to being won over by arguments. The sceptic is expressive of her disagreement. Cynicism When we see again and again that a group or an idea is wrong, or persistently deceptive, the focus shifts from the ideas to the identity of the group. Nothing said by <psychologists or economists or politicians> or whatever can be trusted. A cynic can be healed, but often only by overwhelming new evidence or a deep personal shift in world view. Opposition The opponent has already decided in their mind they cannot or will not accept some ideas. The good opponent sets up an alternative hypothesis and engages in research to find new truths that will hopefully displace the old ones. The negative opponent spends time only on discrediting others. Iconoclasm and Vendettas This is the height of unreason. Being stuck in a black and white world, split over good and evil in which the opposition must be completely eradicated. I see this more and more in the world now. People, like the "internet campaigners" you mention make a career out of aggressive iconoclasm. They engage in "wars on..." and talk of "zero tolerance". --- Not sure I want to attach moral value judgement to any of these "levels", I'm sure I can be capable of all. Some things are clearly rotten in the world and people are tepidly accepting of them, whereas other things absolutely need consigning to history. But there's a lot of ugliness in the last two categories even if they are morally justified.