No, it's not; yes, it is.  (Some of the comments at the latter are a bit, shall we say, "off topic," but several are interesting on both sides of the issue.)

(Thanks to a reader who asked not to be named for the pointers.)

ADDENDUM:  Things are going a bit further off the rails at the second link, alas, but there's one interesting comment a bit further down worth noting, so I quote it here:

What's tiresome about the Rini piece is that she writes as if those of us interested in promoting dignity for all individuals and groups are somehow blind to the importance of solidarity with the marginalized.

We're not. Solidarity is *obviously* very important.  We are, however, suspicious of this particular instantiation of solidarity, because it is bound up with a variety of ills that conflict with other important values.  Trigger warnings, overzealous speech codes, changes to syllabi, and the need for "safe spaces," are all outgrowths of this instantiation of solidarity, all cause real intellectual harm, and all cater to a childish mentality.

Moreover, there is a performative aspect to all of this, amplified by social media, that is simply off-putting.  And the performative element feels increasingly 'mandatory' in some quarters; one's denunciation of the most recent outrage must be swift, harsh, and public.

Rini is of course under no intellectual obligation to address all of this.  But then, to whom is she really talking?  Does she really believe that those of us who object to 'call out' culture are uninterested in solidarity, or do not recognize it when we see it?  We recognize it, but at the same time we also recognize other characteristics that ought to be kept at arms' length. This latter insight doesn't disqualify one from upholding the value of solidarity, and claiming that it does is simply another feature of this increasingly ridiculous debate.