Civility fetishism is actually an endorsement of the sociopathic status quo and reinforces existing power structures. What is considered civil tends to be whatever is acceptable to the most privileged people in society and those most allowed to exist by power structures.

There were heaps and mounds of liberals hemming and hawing over the incivility of Martin Luther King Jr, for example. They said he and his wanted too much too fast and that it was just rude and counterproductive when they used tactics of direct action and made speeches about the necessity of imminent liberation. To the white liberals, that was uncivil.

It tends to mean that those falling outside “the norm” can be abused by simply endorsing the status quo as well. For example, trans people face existential threats from the status quo, but all someone has to do to endorse the abuse of trans people is to ephemistically support “traditional values” in an article about Florida kidnapping trans kids. In reality, calling that transphobe names and making fun of them would be much less harmful than the “civil” statement.

I understand that this instance endorses some of the civility fetish, but I hope it becomes clear that this isn’t a value-neutral position.

In terms of left vs. right discourse, I guess I’ll point to MLK again:

I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negroes’ great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s “Counciler” or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”