What I'm trying to do is use that characterization of inherent superiority, and the interaction with Lunitique, as a lens through which you can examine your own broad motivations. In that spirit, I'd like to just draw a big circle around a fundamental concept: When you look at the values and context of the ideologies being presented, we don't disagree nor are we inherently in conflict.

What you're saying, that when engaging with someone who you hope to bring around shaming is a counterprodutive tool, is fine. It's a bit lies-to-children (for the sake of sparing us both a long and tediously boring discussion of what shame truly is in society) but I'll happily say I totally agree, it is absolutely counterproductive to try and directly influence someone's opinion to a position they do not already hold by engaging with them negatively (it works great to reinforce someone's position, though!).

But that's not what I'm doing. I'm not speaking to them. That's where your projection of your own actions is undermining your understanding of my position. That comment I made, the one that broadcasts the values they actually hold, that's not made with the intent of changing their opinion. It's a completely different strategy, and it's derived from the principal that underpins all societal norms. The reason we don't shit in the street, the reason cultural attitudes change at all, is because of a broad change in perception that those norms aren't acceptable. It's a slow process, and it's a bulk process.

My goal with a comment like that is not to single out a single person and make them "better", it's to demonstrate in clear terms that there are other viewpoints, that the person posting does not exist in a vacuum where they get to dictate the narrative, that opposition to their ideas exists and that if they want to espouse those ideas, they will have to hold them in the face of the justified negative criticism they deserve. I'm not shitting all over anyone's ideas but Lunitiques, but in shitting on those ideas I'm removing their ability to dictate the context in which they interact. This is where you're misapplying the lessons Davis' teaches; he approaches those people individually, and he values that personal connection in changing their more-vile opinions. That is excellent, but you cannot simply take concepts that complex and apply them in a completely, fundamentally, inseparably different context. This is why he supports broad efforts to change societal opinions via outreach and awareness, not just engaging on a personal level. He chooses that method, but he does not denigrate other approaches as inherently bad.

Your stance is that communication and empathy are critical to ending hateful thought. I wholly agree. But while they may be among the most important tools we have, they are not the only tools we have.

I would like to point out something I think you've overlooked:

What I am doing right now is passionately and without any attempts at shaming you, presenting my own position and my own interpretation of your position. I want you to make up your own mind, and I am fully willing to accept a fundamental disagreement between us may be inevitable.

What you are doing, and have been doing (and which I fully credit is not intentional), is attempting to shame me for my approach to this situation. You hold that your position can be reasonably characterized as being morally superior, that you derive feelings of superiority from presenting your positions. These are all things which you have criticized, rightly or wrongly, in my approach. Your stated position contradicts the form your position appears to take, and truly my only goal here is to present that to you. To, through reasoned discourse and genuine sympathetic understanding, let you see that defending hatred on the basis of the form it's criticism takes is counterproductive to the ideals you yourself hold.

edit: bad at typing