This might have gotten lost in the convo and likely I should have mentioned it again, but I advocated for the behavior under discussion to be supererogatory/ a virtue : not something to be enforced, but still something individuals ought to do of their own volition. Hence “I want to talk about why you freely should want to do this” and not “why I should be allowed to make you do this.”
Even when talking about norms though, my instinct is to first clarify what’s normative/virtuous for individuals. I expect disagreements there to be cruxes for disagreements about groups. I guess because I expect both one’s beliefs about what’s good for individuals and what’s good for groups to do to arise from the same underlying models of what makes actions generally good.
(Otherwise, they would just be heuristics)
Huh, that’s a word choice I wouldn’t have considered. I’d usually say “norms apply to groups” and “there’s such a thing is ideal/virtuous/optimal behavior for individuals relative to their values/goals.” I guess it’s actually hard to determine what is ideal/virtuous/optimal, and so you only have heuristics? And virtues really are heuristics. This doesn’t feel like a key point, but let me know if you think there’s an important difference I’m missing.
 I admit that there are dangers even in just having something as a virtue/encouraged behavior, and that your point expressed in this comment to Ray is a legitimate concern.
I worry that saying certain ways of making criticisms are good/bad results in people getting silenced/blamed even when they’re saying true things, which is really bad.
I think that’s a very real risk and really bad when it happens. I think there are large costs in the other direction too. I’d be interested in thinking through together the costs/benefits of having vs not saying certain ways of saying things are better. I think marginal thoughts/discussion could cause me to update where the final balance lies here.