I find that interacting with the crazy sign wavers is rarely of any benefit but I won't begrudge their right to wave a sign around while screaming.

Beyond that it's just a kind of intellectual laziness to refuse to approach difficult topics. I've had productive discussions with self-professed Nazis before because I'm not worried about their ideological position, I think it's flawed, I'll tell them why I think it's flawed, and they can either disagree with me, agree with me, or get angry and storm off. But you'll really get some of these academic types in a tizzy and see them go down an emotional virtue signalling display when you ask them to clarify basic positions. Genocide is wrong. I agree, most everyone agrees. But why is genocide wrong? That's an interesting discussion. But just floating the question will trigger people because it means they have to think about it for more than two seconds. They also don't like economic arguments like "it's expensive to kill people" since they see it as dehumanizing even though everyone in the room is in agreement already that genocide is morally wrong. And if for some reason you get some idiot that actually is legitimately pro genocide as self destructive socially as such an argument is, it's important to actually have these discussions otherwise society will simply be unable to defend against genocidal movements in the future. Logical dispassionate arguments are important because they are one of the few things that can cut through emotional hysteria towards true conclusions.