> disclaimer: I lied, both Bill and sam are actually me. All right reserved.
FWIW, the article says things like "If you accept the issue as nuanced and that all parties are well-intentioned, then you’re giving up the joy of being the Good Side crusading against the Bad Side".
That means the introduction, "trying to unprovactively discuss a topic", is also a lie. The word "crusade" is provocative, as we learned after G.W. Bush used it shortly after 9/11, and the structuring of "all parties are well-intentioned" vs. Good/Bad-Sideism, is also a lie, as those are not the only two ways to structure this argument.
For example, one could argue about what "hostile workplace" means in the context of civil rights law, what a company might need to do to defend itself against an EEOC claim, and a discussion of what a "quite severe" incident might be ("quite severe" comes from the EEOC guidelines).
Bringing up "political correctness" is also part of the provocative language choice, as it is only really used as an off-hand dismissal of any challenges to the existing status quo based on a history of white, male, rich power.
For example, if "political correct" had a broader meaning, then we should say that politicians who defend the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms far more than they defend the Constitutionally protected right to an abortion are also being politically correct.