My point is that we should have meaningful dialogues during the election, which I believe is demonstrated here, despite your intentions.

Part of having meaningful dialogues is asking questions for clear understanding.

Some people won't see our point of view, no matter how considerate we are in our approach.

I understand not contributing anything if you don't have anything invaluable to offer or if someone is aggressive in their approach.

We should ensure that we have the emotional capacity to engage in these conversations that can be life-changing.

Rest is revolutionary.

Now I understand after responding to you that you don't engage in "political debates."

My point is that no one is neutral, and making peace sometimes requires us to do tangible work.

I am not implying that you do not do tangible work. I am basing my thoughts off of what you've shared.

I believe expressing our views is an invitation for meaningful dialogue, not a political debate.

I believe the breakdown in our communication primarily comes down to semantics.

I like to ask individuals: How can I best serve you?

It's not necessary to write about the tangible work. However, it's nice to be able to accurately identify allies online.

When I was referring to fearless leaders; I was referring to everyday people. Lots of changes were made by everyday people. Food for thought.