So, where lies the point crossing which one is obeying the rules of debate as defined by liberal blackmail? Is it at the point where “discomfort caused by a challenge is seen as … harassment”? I understand that to mean something like this: someone says something, makes a claim of some sort. S/he is challenged to produce the evidence, or offer justification. And the claimant cries foul and harassment. Is that about right? If so, that seems a pretty fair idea.
But then there are all sorts of challenges. I would argue that (especially in the absence of formal procedures) “civil and nice” is how we distinguish the substantive and productive ones from mere bravado.
—ravi