This plays out daily in the sham debates of the mass media.
Those in power - i.e. the mass media and their Leftist servants (in other words, the Progressive Establishment, the Mandarinate, those with power and influence) demand to be interpreted with nuance - and impose unilateral nuance on the debate.
In practice, this means those in the power structure debate so that they are judged by strictly legalistic interpretations of their precise words - interpreted with an assumption of their good motivations.
This framework is imposed by the mass media
The Progressive Establishment refuse to be judged by any except good motivations (which have been inferred from innumerable previous acts and trends) - it is regarded as simply crazy talk from 'conspiracy theorists' to assume that the power-holders' motivations are bad.
Yet, if the debate is structured by this assumption of the good motivations of the Progressive Establishment - then they must always be allowed 'the benefit of the doubt'; and since doubt can always be manufactured - therefore the Liberal Establishment have pre-won every debate: their victory is built-in...
(Because the mass media controls the debate, and the mass media is the origin and focus of modern New Leftism, Political Correctness, Progressivism.)
Leftist politicians have pre-won every issue they care to raise - in the public arena - so long as there has been a lawyerly choice of wording for everything they say.
In other words, so long as Leftist politicians speak legalese, the mass media will always win their debates for them.
It is the ability to communicate in lawyerly - ie. deniable - forms of words which explains the domination of the political system by lawyers.
Opposition to Progressive Leftism is, on the other hand, judged not by the legalistic wording of its arguments - but by its inferred motivations: by its assumed negative motivations.
Since it is pre-decided that Leftism has good motivations; opposition necessarily has bad motivations (or else they are ignorant or insane, and can be ignored).
The actual arguments of the opposition do not need to be considered (nuance not needed), because it has been pre-decided that their motivations are wicked (or dumb or crazy).
Therefore the arguments of the opposition are not considered - but the opposition is simply treated as as bad people who want bad things (or else labelled as ignorant or insane, and out-with the scope of legitimate debate).
This is modern public discourse.
Nuance and the assumption of good motivations for us - but you will be treated as wicked, dumb or crazy and your arguments will therefore - naturally, be ignored.
You will be managed as 'a problem', not debated.
What is the point of participating in this?
None that I can see. Good stuff can only happen outside the public arena, out-with the mass media.
Good people with good ideas must either build-up their own channels of communication - mostly face to face and/or person to person - and essentially ignore the mass media; or else good people are absorbed into evil; fuel the mass media; take-up their pre-assigned parts of demons, knuckle-draggers and lunatics whose defeat has already been scripted.