You're also operating with hypotheticals here, except you don't get challenged 'cause you're supporting the average viewpoint which is to by-proxy use the very power of x-isms to reject the main point without engaging in debate, i.e. you can get away at rejecting the article's premise because of potential "x-isms" they're guilty of and because they're x-isms you don't have to debate.

I would direct you to Vaclav Havel's book "Power of the Powerless" - where dictatorship of the ritual is spelled out and how he amazingly identifies the traits of post-totalitarian societies. I believe heresy is one such trait.

I would also add that my main issue is with this flippant attitude towards the greater issue: that heresy is alive and well and trumps everything from science, truth, evidence and context.

Answer me: who defines x-ism/x-phobia? Remember if such a tool (heresy) exists and it is effective then your enemies get to use it too.