I consider you a friend regardless of our disagreement on certain issues. That's true now, and something unexpected would have to happen going forward for it to change.
My question is this: What would you do if your friends, who shared your approximate social values in the core-belief sense but had a very different way of expressing it, kept engaging in circle-jerk, echo-chamber type discussions where critical thinking took a backseat to getting applause and pats on the back? If you'd call them out for it, then you're like me.
Now, from the friends' perspective - from inside the echo chamber - it would appear that someone interjecting was just being "disruptive" or "trolling", or worse yet, evidencing hidden beliefs in line with the "other side" conservative viewpoint. See, for example:
"Drew Levin @drewlevin [to me] @mtg_law_etc ... you are literally the biggest concern troll I've ever encountered."
"Drew Levin @drewlevin [to me] @mtg_law_etc You derail every conversation about [social justice] you participate in, claim liberal social views yet bat for the other side CONSTANTLY."Well, of course it looks disruptive, it's intended to disrupt. When you, Drew, and others are doing things like attacking a straw-man argument or otherwise serving your like-minded audience at the expense of the persuasive arguments, then, upon being called out, falling back on "well, I wasn't intending to persuade anyone, just to offer support to those who are oppressed/struggling", you are engaging in a pattern of discourse that SHOULD be disrupted every time people try to pass it off as persuasive writing or discourse. Being supportive is fine, but I constantly see an attacked persuasive piece being defended as "mere support for the victim(s)" when the arguments are scrutinized, in an attempt to shield the piece from criticism and critical analysis.
At the end of the day, bad arguments are written in sand. Solid arguments are written in stone. If you care about social issues, that should matter to you. http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/03/21/how-to-argue-like-stalin/
An example of an argument I've made (pulling pretty randomly, I just happened to make this one this morning) is "To depict is not to endorse." How could they show violent rape on [TV Show X] or ambiguity about racial issues in [Movie Y]? Well, depicting events with either realism or exaggerated realism is one of the artist-as-social-commentator's most powerful tools. Victims of crime or people in other sensitive circumstances have to be the ones applying filters to content if they aren't ready to view certain material. The only alternative to that (since we all agree expression should be legal - 1st amendment disclaimer, we aren't talking about that) is authors censoring themselves in anticipation of various sensitive groups of viewers, and nearly all interesting and forward thinking content will give a careful author pause. There are all kinds of viewers, sensitive to all kinds of content, it might not even be possible to filter at the author level for things that may trigger something in a particular audience member, wherever they may be. Even if an author can filter, say, depictions of rape, the overall landscape of awareness of and discussion of rape will suffer. It's too large a price to pay.
I rehash that argument here in an attempt to show, with a concrete example, that I do practice what I preach. I get called a troll all the time by those on both sides of social issues who don't want to have to actually defend what they're saying, but where in the above paragraph do you find the name-calling, assertion of claims I don't honestly believe have value, or hiding the ball/distraction that is actually the work of trolls? That's the great thing about an argument like the one above. Now that I've written it, it stands alone, and nothing that can be said about me will take away its force when a rational person reads it. I hope my friends, regardless of how they feel about offensive content, will point out whether they think the argument is persuasive or unpersuasive, and I hope they cite opposing viewpoints in doing so, even if they don't hold those viewpoints themselves.
Drew, join us as we write our arguments in stone and hope the next generation will find them.