Intellectual dishonesty would be denying it. I make no such denial - I have rejected this person's writings because I can't find any reason to believe that this person entertains discussion (or even the
idea of discussion) in good faith.
I do not do this out of hand, or on a whim. I've read this person's writings before, and have made a genuine attempt to read him charitably.
> its always about silencing or shunning people, never about engaging them.
Shunning, maybe. I don't think it's inappropriate to stop a conversation that you know is going to be used as a weapon against you later by someone with truly onerous views. I don't have an obligation to engage with people whose only interest in engagement is to use it a token of their ideological legitimacy. Silencing, never.