In the past society used to challenge opinions more directly and immediately, sometimes even descending into outright "intolerant" behavior.
Now the pendulum has swung and even the most eloquent, tame, and well thought-out argument is at risk of being labeled as intolerant of something.
Add to that that echo-chambers have gone from what used to be small groups of people to the massive ones that exist on the internet today, and we are at a point where many people aren't used to having their opinions challenged. Reactions of people suddenly confronted with an opinion outside their comfort zone vary from responding with fallacies, seeking protection by an authority figure (HR, police, etc.) to losing their composure.
I'm not sure if "60s and 70s" is supposed to be some kind of strawman, because I specified no such thing (I was really thinking of a time period slightly later than that), but the Zeitgeist in that period was influenced by what happened earlier, so I'll humor you.
Here's the sentence I assume you're referring to again:
> In the past society used to challenge opinions more directly and immediately, sometimes even descending into outright "intolerant" behavior.
The end of segregation fits well into the time period you specified, so let's use that as an example.
- 1955-1968. Martin Luther King Jr becomes spokesperson and leader in the civil rights movement.
- 1956. Montgomery bus boycott.
- 1961. Freedom Riders.
- 1965. Beatles refuse to play in front of a segregated audience.
- 1965. Showdown in Selma.
- 1968. De jure segregation is fully outlawed in the United States.
You can imagine that all of these topics were publicly debated back then. Labeling someone a racist or intolerant would've been met with "Yes, I am. So what?" by some people, so that didn't even work as an "argument" by itself.
For even more perspective, have a look at these surveys[0] conducted in the period 1960-1970, featuring such questions as:
- "Do you think most Negroes believe in nonviolent action or do you think most Negroes would like to use violence in their demonstrations?".
- "I'd like to ask you if you were in the same position as Negroes, if you think it would be justified or not to march and protest in demonstrations?"
Imagine having that kind of discussion today. Yeah I can't either. People would be outraged and try to get someone fired. Maybe rightfully so.
It took three decades for half of the opinions that were expressed back then to become "taboo", and another two decades for us to arrive where we are today, where pretty much anything that isn't a mainstream opinion on the matter is now a dangerous topic. Hence the pendulum metaphor.
The predominant viewpoints have become entrenched and are being defended against any opinion that doesn't smell the same. Anything that just might threaten them, even if there is no obvious conflict, is labeled "racist", "intolerant", "left", "right", etc and shot down on sight.
Debates back then weren't less heated, but there were more "real debates" and there were significantly less taboo topics and opinions.
Edit: I rambled on for a long time, so to get back to the issue at hand, please imagine "Story 1" or "Story 2" from the article were set in 1960. They just wouldn't be plausible anymore. Nobody could feel "unsafe" or "shaken up" over these opinions - they are tame compared to the opinions publicly expressed back then.
