A couple days ago, over on the social media machine, Navneet Alang, an opinion section editor at the Toronto Star, posted this thought maker:

1 question to ask about “debate” is whether or not one shares a goal with the opposing view. You might argue about how to house people – public housing, upzoning, deregulation etc. – but you at least share a similar goal. It’s that overlap in a desired outcome that underpins the ideal of “debate.”

It comes, of course, in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder and his far-right reactionary supporters’ vow to enforce proper and dignified observance of the death of man who was neither proper nor dignified, no matter how much avowed liberal centrists insist on everyone attempting to uncover any evidence to the contrary. “Ben Shapiro and I Talk De-Escalation,” writes the New York Times, Ezra Klein, days after insisting that the late Charlie Kirk, a raging bigot, white Christian nationalist, did politics ‘the right way’. Ben Shapiro, for those lucky enough not to be in-the-know, is a minor league Charlie Kirk. Homophobic. Transphobic. Islamaphobic. Etc. & Etc.

To run with Mr. Alang’s thinking here: What common or shared goal does any self-proclaimed, card-carrying liberal have with the likes of Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk and all the other members of the modern far-right? I’ll refrain from labelling their movement fascist although all signs point in that direction. So let’s call it a malignant, perfidious mob of white ethno-statists, unexceptional in every way except for their ability to stir up resentment, divisiveness and bold-faced hatred toward anyone who doesn’t share their ludicrous and vindictive values and skin colour.

What sort of debate should be endeavouring to have with such people? What shared or common goal between us is there to debate? When one side’s idea of de-escalation is the destruction and elimination of the opposing side, what’s the sense of sitting down across from each other to try and hash out our differences?

What’s the halfway point we’re looking to arrive at with hate?

It was truly a masterstroke by the evil genius brain that inserted into our public discourse the idea that tolerance, by its very nature, must tolerate intolerance. That we must grant it an even-handed hearing, be open-minded to its close-mindedness. That somehow otherwise rational people must refer to, say, racial intolerance as… ummm, let me scroll through some recent newspaper editorials… intellectual inquiry, non-monolithic or nuanced thinking, a divergent viewpoint, a mere disagreement, good lord, even ‘Socratic’. Hey! I’m just asking questions here. Like, Do Black lesbian pilots have the intelligence to actually fly an airplane? Under what free speech, civil debate exercise am I obligated to respond to such ‘intellectual inquiry’ other than: Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit?

To go back to Navneet Alang’s genuine question: What commonality am I seeking with a person that spouts such provocative, demeaning, dehumanizing, atavistic bullshit? Where’s that middle-ground between us? The first thing that pops into my mind is, ‘Look. I’m no racist but…’

See where you land there?

These questions are as close to black-and-white as we can possibly get.

You’re either a racist or you’re not.

You’re either homophobic or you’re not.

You’re either transphobic or you’re not.

You’re either misogynistic or you’re not.

So what is it we want to debate?

Be it resolved that western civilization is being undermined by mongrel races intent—

Yeah. Let me stop you right there.

Engaging in debate with thinking that only seeks to dominate and diminish not to find some sort of consensus or middle ground—because I’ll ask again, Where’s the middle-ground with a racist?—accomplishes no other purpose than to legitimize hate and division. Whites are superior to all other races. Jews control Hollywood and international banking. There’s no such thing as a ‘trans’ person. Are any of those statements even up for debate in your mind? If so, I’m thinking people like Charlie Kirk aren’t the real problem here. It’s those seeking some sort of accommodation with the likes of Charlie Kirk who are.