It is when it's entirely redundant, i.e. when you've heard the same arguments countless times before and know that you're about to reject them again.

You may notice that your sibling replies treat the "alternative viewpoint" in question as if it were objective fact, and show the same unwillingness. It's prudent to understand whose minds can actually be changed on issues like this.

> the same unwillingness

The "unwillingness" in question is the decision not to read and engage with another's perspective. The replies calling this a fact are actually engaging with the points being made. Whether or not American politics is becoming more fascist isn't really a matter of debate unless one simply doesn't know what the word "fascist" is referring to.

You seem, er, "unwilling" to engage with an objective definition of fascism. It's in another comment in this thread if you want to discuss it in good faith. What do you think? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45575415) Personally, it seems kinda obvious that the phrase "Make America Great Again" was chosen specifically for how it evokes palingenetic ultranationalism.

> It's prudent to understand whose minds can actually be changed on issues like this.

It's prudent to say what you believe. Whether or not someone is willing to engage with your beliefs in good faith is on them.

That is a good advice. Do you follow it yourself? Did you, for instance, read Mein Kampf to “consider an alternative viewpoint”? Or is it only good when the “alternative viewpoint” is yours?

> Did you, for instance, read Mein Kampf to “consider an alternative viewpoint”?

This doesn't seem to be relevant. They didn't dismiss Mein Kampf as a waste of time.