This whole essay is very much worth reading. This is something I worry about a lot (as I’m sure is obvious to anyone who’s been reading my blog over the past couple of years).

Without rehashing at length, my argument against the left’s illiberal style is twofold. First, it tends to interpret political debates as pitting the interests of opposing groups rather than opposing ideas. Those questioning whatever is put forward as the positions of oppressed people are therefore often acting out of concealed motives. (Even oppressed people themselves may argue against their own authentic group interest; that a majority of African-Americans oppose looting, or that Omar Wasow himself is black, hardly matters.) Second, it frequently collapses the distinction between words and action — a distinction that is the foundation of the liberal model — by describing opposing beliefs as a safety threat.

Working from these premises, many reactions by the left that might seem bizarre to somebody unfamiliar with this world (say, an older or more moderate person who doesn’t work in academia or the progressive movement) can make perfect sense. Since criticism of violent protests is racist, and racism obviously endangers black people, an act as seemingly innocuous as sharing credible research poses a threat to safety.

The Still-Vital Case for Liberalism in a Radical Age

Regarding (above) “[Leftist illiberalism] tends to interpret political debates as pitting the interests of opposing groups rather than opposing ideas,” see also Scott Alexander’s 2018 piece on Conflict Theory vs Mistake Theory.