God knows why Naomi (or anyone else for that matter) continues to "engage" (not really the right word, is it?) with someone who lacks the basic moral quality needed to discuss honestly any point of difference: you believe A, I believe B; is our disagreement over the facts? In which case let's examine the facts; or do we, perhaps, agree about the facts, but disagree about the methods by which we mitigate harm and promote good.
The latter is the usual case: we agree broadly about the facts, but differ strongly on the means by which we redress social evils. And that's why we have political parties offering alternative solutions.
If you are unprepared to examine evidence, on the other hand, or deny facts which are staring you in the face, there's obviously a place for you somewhere, but that place is not an institution of democratic governance.