Yeah, when a prominent member of the opposition describes how they mindkill themselves avoid wrongthink, and this is apparently endorsed by many in the community, then I think we're on relatively safe ground when saying that irrationalism (i.e. a refusal to consider or tolerate alternative opinions) is alive and well among our opposition.

I mean, a lot of the sociological theories behind the social justice movement are essentially elaborate rationales to legitimise the genetic fallacy, i.e. that an idea is wrong or false because of its source.

In this view, peoples' ideas, beliefs, and arguments are a predictable function of group membership--economic class, race, gender, age, etc. Arguments, then, are interpreted as mere strategies to subjugate, dominate, undermine, or overthrow opposing groups. Individuals may believe themselves truth-seeking rationalists, but they're at the mercy of the ubiquitous social forces which mold their dispositions, prejudices, and opinions from birth. Their earnest and well-meaning beliefs are functionally equivalent to self-interested deception, and they can be summarily dismissed for the same reason. In this view, to consider an opposing view would be like voluntarily injecting yourself with poison, and you should no more tolerate opposing views than you would tolerate marauders trying to enslave you. To complete the ideological hermetic seal, if peoples' ideas, beliefs, and arguments don't match up, then there are general purpose get-out-of-refutation-free cards like 'false consciousness' and 'internalised misogyny'.

These theories pretty much have 'don't consider or tolerate opposing views' built into them from the foundation. It's actually incredible, and reassuring, that people who adopt these ideologies remain somewhat open-minded, and that opposing rationalist values still hold a lot of intuitive appeal.