"[Vox Day is] spewing forth the venom of hatred and violence, poisoning any attempt at honest dialogue."
Honest question: Can you point to a real example of this? (Poisoning honest dialogue, as opposed to an internet pissing match.) Since you seem to be referencing direct knowledge, have you personally ever attempted an honest dialogue with Vox Day? As a reader of VD, I thoroughly doubt your claim. I have read VD dismantle opponents' arguments logically, sometimes using rhetorical flair as well, but I have never seen him use hatred and violence to poison an attempt at honest dialogue. In fact, he seems to *relish* honest dialogue.
"When we disagree, is it really necessary to spit and snap at each other, to throw around insults and obscenities, to make death threads, rape threats? Can't we just debate the issues?"
Good questions. I say that (since I am a fan of VD's books) as a hate-enabling toad or something like that.
"Can't we just debate the issues?"
Since you are calling for a "conservative in the house with the courage and integrity... honest and brave enough" to denounce VD, perhaps you would lead the way in displaying those attributes and make your specific case against him (or his part in the Hugo noms) in a new post and invite VD to respond.
As a voice of liberal moderation and reason, if you made a good-faith effort to reach out and VD responds with threats and hatred as you portray, then I guarantee that your effort to marginalize him will be greatly aided. I imagine at that point you would even get conservatives to denounce him as you desire. You would absolutely OWN the moral high ground. Or if you were able to reason him away from his "extreme" positions, even slightly, you would win that way as well.
(Of course, it may be too late for an honest dialogue now that you have attacked not just him but his benighted fans. He has a policy regarding that.)
The only way you lose in such an endeavor is if the hyperbole(?) in your post above is shown to be wrong. And is that really a loss?
I am quite willing to debate Mr. Martin blog-to-blog on any subject he chooses. In fact, I will go so far as to guarantee that if I resort to threats and hatred in the course of that debate, I will ask both Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia to denounce me in the strongest possible terms.
We certainly can debate the issues. I have debated economics, evolution, the existence of gods, and even ancient philosophical skepticism without any need to resort to threats, hatred, or even rancor. But it is difficult to debate when SJWs constantly run away from debate whenever it is proposed to them.
I once offered a debate on racism to Jason Sanford. He ran away from it, declaring that some things could not be debated. I once responded to PZ Myers's call to debate the existence of God. He ran away from it, claiming that I was a crackpot. I subsequently offered to debate him in his field of expertise, but he ran away from that too. A third party proposed a debate between me and John Scalzi. I accepted, whereas John Scalzi ran away from it.
You have asked if we cannot simply debate the issues. I say we can. I am entirely willing to debate the issues with you without spitting and snapping, without throwing around insults and obscenities, and without threatening to rape or kill you, if you are willing to do the same. My readership is considerably smaller than yours, but it is not insubstantial; my blogs now see 1.6 million pageviews per month. In the interest of amity within the science fiction community, I am even willing to overlook the fact that you have repeated various falsehoods about me, concocted some fascinating new ones, and insulted my loyal readers by calling them "toads".
Nevertheless, I am willing to debate the issues, Mr. Martin. I am willing to engage in honest dialogue. Are you?