That's sort of my point, Akenaton. It plays both ways in this discussion.

There are always certain forms of bigotry (or mere opinion) that will draw immediate censure in any peer group...because it has become acceptable to attack those specific forms of bigotry (while practicing others that aren't recognized as such)...and attacking them in the most righteous a voluable way will draw the effusive support of your peers. Soon a delighted mob has gathered to stone the vile infidel! ;-)

That happened a lot back in Jesus' day too...and the mob had him crucified.

He was advising that it was okay to work on the Sabbath...if you were healing someone or doing something constructive like that. (horrors!)

He was advising forgiveness of sinners. (Unforgivable!!!)

He was advising nonviolence. (Kill him!!!!)

Yes, it's always very comforting to be part of a ravening and judgemental mob confronted by a non-officially-scanctioned viewpoint, isn't it?

I've always distrusted mobs, regardless of which side of a debate they are on. I figure that there is usually a certain lack of both goodwill and a desire for genuine communication in a situation like that...no real desire to understand where someone else is coming from, just a desire to crucify them and thereby publicly prove one's own righteous credentials in the process.

And as I say, you might well find that happening on BOTH sides of a heated debate, mightn't you?