> Their legal cases are rejected.
Because their claims are held up to the law and don't pass muster.
> The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously.
Some particular popular outlets are allied with them, the rest of the major media takes them quite seriously (it often investigated their claims and finds them unsupported, but that's not failing to take them seriously.)
> We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're ists if they disagree.
No, we’re listening to them. The rest of us aren’t agreeing* with them. (On the other hand, this is more literally true in the opposite direction.)
> We're not debating anymore.
You can only debate from a certain degree of shared basis, which does not exist.
> We just assume we're right.
On the issues of objective, verifiable fact, this is a conclusion not an assumption. On the matters of fundamental moral values, beliefs on those issues have a fundamentally axiomatic nature: there is no debating them.
On the other hand, this claim is, again, more true in reverse (especially on the issues of verifiable objective fact.)
> We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the population out of public debate,
Or they are excluding the rest of society from their debate.
> and they are powerless to stop it.
They are not powerless to stop disengaging or engaging only in bad faith. Well, I mean many of them individually probably psychologically are powerless to do so, especially while those they take their cues from are doing so, but as a collective group they are not.
> Is it surprising that they are furious about it, and explode in unpredictable ways?
What unpredictable ways? Most of their explosions are publicly telegraphed quite specifically, and have a direction that has been publicly requested by the public figures that they overtly venerate.
It's not chaotic, unpredictable explosions of impotent rage of the factually disenfranchised, it's strategic, directed action at the behest of some of the most privileged segments of society, with the masses directed using mechanisms that are textbook features of cults.
I mean, if you are talking about the Tes Party/Trump/Q/alt-right/etc. group.
If you are talking about the people considered about the lack of accountability for murder of people of their race, actually, barring a partial shift that happened well into the paroxysm of protest over the last year, yeah, you are mostly exactly correct (though the nondisputable nature of fundamental moral principals is an issue there, too.)