There are some things that are off topic for any discussion. For example, the humanity of a fellow human being. I'm not prepared to have a civil debate over whether non-white people deserve this or that right that we take for granted. And this is a big issue we're facing now, with ICE raids, poor people losing medical care, people who disagree politically being labeled terrorists, LGBTQ people being targeted, boats being blown out of the water, etc.

These norms are far too easily hacked by those that do not care about civil discourse or rational thought.

> If you are using a name or term to refer to someone, it should have a clear and widely accepted definition. It is best if it is something they would use to describe themselves.

Well that’s the whole problem, innit? Yesterday’s “clear and widely accepted definition” is tomorrow’s “but leftists call everyone [whatever].”

> Don’t use logical fallacies.

Enforcing this maxim inevitably means shifting the discussion from the topic at hand to abstract logic, which never ever goes well. A person knowingly doing an ad hominem will gladly bullshit you into all the reasons it isn’t an ad hominem; a person carefully avoiding ad hominem can easily be accused of it on specious grounds. Both arguments are won by the interlocutor that doesn’t care about rationality, logic, or reason.

> Be clear when you know someone’s motivation and when you’re making assumptions.

We’ve experienced over a decade of right-wingers the world over denying their obvious motivations even in the presence of explicit statements confirming them. I think it’s well past time to bury the notion that one shouldn’t infer motivations from words or actions.