When disagreement is offense: Excuse me, but your democracy is making me very uncomfortable right now

Comment published on New York Times blog, in reply to opinion essay by Michelle Goldberg, “Rachida Tlaib said nothing wrong,” January 8, 2019:

In America, where public expressions of disagreement are regularly greeted with intolerance, often if you express an opinion contrary to another, people will either claim that you have expressed personal intolerance (or prejudice) which must not be tolerated, or spoke in an improper manner. (They may believe it). Perhaps you "raised your voice" in pseudo-violence, used naughty words, or didn't show respect.

This is deeply etched in a culture oriented more to liberty than democracy. By which I mean not voting, representatives, and majority rule, but the kind of everyday interaction in which one person says something about something (of consequence) to someone.  

Our corporate culture needs this: all on the team should feel comfortable; make small talk or say only what is relevant to getting the job done. Students at our corporate modeled universities, buying a position in the middle class, act similarly by combatting supposed prejudice in safe zones excluding speech that offends. And our schools often merely tell kids what to believe, and not how to think. 

In our political culture, argument is about winning, not thinking. All are part of a faction, and want to win, get votes or contributions, or get their policy agenda adopted.  

People can attack opponents gratuitously for personal sins. Ours is an ad hominem culture. Politics is war between partisan groups, or lobbies.  

But personal attacks are bad arguments. We can win on ideas.