How do you discuss in "good faith" ideas like white nationalism?
You discuss it the same way you discuss any other idea in good faith:
by evaluating the content on its message, not on the presuppositions you might have for its messenger;
by evaluating each topic in isolation on its own, and trying to determine whether or not any individual point has merit or not, how much merit it may have, and where it does not have merit, explaining why you consider it meritless;
by being open-minded enough to not dismiss individual points because you disagree with the central thesis;
by putting forth your best arguments, and letting the stronger argument win the day, unblemished by vitriol;
by being civil and courteous to your fellow man because as humans, they're deserving of at least a civil, open minded discussion.
You discuss it the same way you discuss any other idea in good faith:
by evaluating the content on its message, not on the presuppositions you might have for its messenger;
by evaluating each topic in isolation on its own, and trying to determine whether or not any individual point has merit or not, how much merit it may have, and where it does not have merit, explaining why you consider it meritless;
by being open-minded enough to not dismiss individual points because you disagree with the central thesis;
by putting forth your best arguments, and letting the stronger argument win the day, unblemished by vitriol;
by being civil and courteous to your fellow man because as humans, they're deserving of at least a civil, open minded discussion.