It is asking asking a legitimate question in a neutral manner. It’s not supposed to be a microaggression. Asking a legitimate question should provoke discussion, unless discussion is fundamentally broken in your current environment, which again would be good to know.
In other words, don't ignore the atmosphere and end up killing it. Which is kind of the point of the article, I feel.
This is super condescending.
We very often have discussions around which solution we take. Often we take the one that we don’t like as much but we know how to make it work. The other solution designs are kept so we can revisit them sometime (or as reference for when somebody says “why don’t you…?”) with fresh minds and then see a new way around the problems we saw before.
In my experience the “<showstopper>“ is almost never a law of physics but a shortcoming of a dependency, either it’s implementation or architecture, or just some assumptions that are or have become invalid later on.
Instead of "what about <showstopper>?" you could say "I think that might be a reasonable solution. What impact will <showstopper> have on it?" and now you've validated the good and brought up the potential showstopper without shutting down the conversation about it.