My meaning behind this was: Within a debate the opposite party attempts to deplatform you by misrepresenting your arguement. This creates a 'straw man' they are arguing against as opposed to your actually point.

There seems to be this thing with people where they feel this need to have "discourse" with people that obviously hate them, like they are all going to break thru, have some hot dogs, and Maximum Friendship is achieved.

Im all for other points of view, and listening, but there are always limits. you have to consider the speaker, and where the head hits the pillow at the end of the day. I think about the video I just saw, of the man with swastika flags up in his basement, and a bunch of white kids saluting it, but then he has an Indian ex and half Indian kids, and is like "Children are Children". Im not the fuckhead whisperer. Its not my job to talk this fucking asshole that is getting press coverage back into being a person, and to throw all that nazi trash into a firepit, and tell his loser friends to fuck off. He needs to do these things on his own. Before its too late.

@rafferty I believe you bring a lot of clarity in this message. We often try to change someone's mind or even go so far as to "save them" from their self destructed path. At the end of the day they are not the ones making the change it's all for naught.