I do not think there is a clean, mechanical way to distinguish passion and expertise from signaling in the moment, and I am not claiming omniscience there. My point is about aggregate behavior and incentives, not adjudicating individual intent. Systems that reward visibility, speed, and alignment will naturally select for responses that optimize for those traits, regardless of whether participants are sincere, informed, or acting in good faith.

On norms, I agree there are cases where the content itself is the violation, not merely a disagreement. Extreme examples make that clear. Where it becomes tricky is that the boundary of what counts as norm violating has expanded and become more fluid, while the enforcement mechanisms have become faster and more punitive. That combination raises the risk of false positives and discourages exploratory or imperfect reasoning, even when the underlying intent is not malicious.

I also agree that many people disagreeing is not inherently a problem. What I am pushing back on is the framing that this is always just neutral preference aggregation. When enforcement becomes immediate, public, and identity focused, it changes the cost structure of participation. The fact that a norm exists does not automatically mean it is optimal for discourse, only that it is currently dominant.

Your last point about hurt and callousness is important. I suspect that is part of the explanation. But if widespread hurt leads us to default to faster and harsher sorting rather than engagement, it seems reasonable to ask whether that tradeoff is actually helping us understand each other better, or just making the lines more rigid.