For me, personally, it depends on the severity of how stupid an opinion is, how often someone with opinions says something dumb, etc.
If you're clearly ready to die on a hill about something and that hill represents a monumental stupidity that invalidates the quality of life of an innocent person for no reason, then maybe that perspective shouldn't be voiced in some discussions.
But beyond reacting accordingly to any opinion that is clearly trash, a lot of online interaction among progressive communities to me reads as a battle of who gets to be right, who deserves the most respect, rather than one of understanding where someone might be coming from, nuance and valuing more objective truths as much as personal/subjective ones.
Some of the judgement you see, and mainly this seems to be coming from folks who are in highschool and college and still finding their voice so I get it, feels like the political discourse equivalent of looking up the answer to the math problem and calling it a day instead of showing your work.
I dunno, ultimately I just feel like even Era can sometimes benefit more from using critical thinking to figure out why someone is saying something they disagree with and approaching it with care and thought instead of dogpiling on it for victory points or because of an emotional kneejerk reaction or a perception of the entirety of who that person is or whatever. Even most professional social scientists and academics aren't that smart so I guess my posting ethos is basically challenging stuff I know for sure is dumb while hanging back more in heated discussions and always reacting with skepticism every time I read a post on the internet written by anyone in a voice of authority of someone who has proven they are that smart. I certainly know I'm not, at least at this point in my life.
