> He intelligently refutes their nonsense but he never asks them to change their mind or leave the Klan. He simply waits until they want to do it on their own accord.

This also happens to be the playbook you are encouraged to follow if you are trying to rescue someone from a cult or domestic violence situation.

Arguing gets you nowhere; they will defend their abusers. The best you can do is innocuously show them that the reality they've been brainwashed into internalizing does not work the way they were told. They will either come to their senses--on "their" own terms--or will prove to be a lost cause.

Darryl's work is amazing. Today we see people doing the polar opposite, label someone, shum and deplatform, label some more, harass, destroy his/her livelihood, destroy his/her reputation.

It's challenging because the optimal strategy for converting an individual is not necessarily what's best for society as a whole.

Risking Godwin's law, imagine the extreme case of Hitler. The best strategy to convert Hitler may well be Jewish people befriending him, rather than confronting him. But in the meantime, Hitler is radicalizing others and committing genocide. At some point, it makes more sense to just assassinate Hitler (or deplatform him, or depose him, etc.) rather than trying to save him.

No, it doesnt. Responding to mere speech with escalation or violence has not ever worked in the responder's favor. It has instead fueled coups and revolutions (like the American civil rights movement).

Killing someone for their ideas sends the wrong message and grants them more legitimacy than anything. You elevate them to the same status as Jesus Christ, whose popular namesake religion is predicated on sticking to your beliefs in the face of any and all consequence.

You're on it. you can't change someone's mind, only present information that contradicts their world view, and then it is up to them to process that change, or reject it. Introducing doubt.

An example from a blog on jewelry how to counteract astrological nonsense is to point out supposedly different stones like emerald and beryl, are actually the same mineral, just with impurities like chromium present.

By presenting neutral factual information in that fashion, you can ask how or why the chromium affects the spiritual flow of the thing or whatever. It remains up to the person if they are persuaded or not.

Why would they be persuaded by you pointing out that the only difference between two stones is an element that has shown proven changes when added to other things?

I don't think the intention is to persuade them. But simply by asking questions you start wheels turning that weren't turning before. Then they have to persuade themselves.