The culture wars will likely doom us all, but they can also be good fun. There is one important rule to partaking in the culture wars though: if you find yourself being angry, get the hell out!
If someone is angry, they are irrational. This is the basis behind the “Cooler heads prevail” motto. When you’re angry, you can’t reason about things as well. And if you can’t reason about things well, you shouldn’t be asking others to live according to your reasoning.
Take a break. Get your life together. Do something challenging. Have some fun. And after some time has passed, if you’re feeling up to it, get yourself back in.
Do I expect all the folks burning and seething with righteous anger to follow this? No, of course not. They’ll respond that they “know” what’s right, that their passion is a substitute for rationality.
But if you know better, you can follow this personally. Once you’re calm, you’ll remember how irrational you were being when you were seething with rage. Then you’ll learn to dismiss the clatter of braying asses because you know they’re in that very state you left behind. This doesn’t mean disengaging with everyone who holds an opposing view, it means engaging only with the calm minds of those who hold an opposing view. (If you can’t find any, it may say something about the view, but it may also just say something about you.)
I’ve thought a lot about when to apply the principle of charity and when not to. I thought it was the greatest rule ever when I first heard it, and I assumed everyone who wasn’t following it simply hadn’t heard of it. Being a little wiser now, I understand that not only was that not true, applying the principle in the wrong places can be an unproductive waste of time. The question arises: how do you decide whether someone is worth engaging with?
The simple answer is to only engage with those who seem reasonable to you. The problem is that this heuristic doesn’t universalize. If you ask a libertarian who seems reasonable to them, you’ll get a very different answer from what a socialist would give.
A universalizable heuristic would be “Only engage with people who are calm and open to dialogue”. Now you have an objective measure. Now you have a valid reason to shut out certain people from discourse, not because they don’t have any good ideas, but because they’re not providing a valid way for you to interface with those ideas.