He never even said feminists, and he certainly didn’t mean every feminist. There are many, many feminists with radical and unsubstantiated views, like the ones he showed in the video. He’s saying they may have unfairly targeted him.

There are numerous other games involving murdering high school students that haven’t been banned. It hasn’t been explained to him why his game was banned and others have not.

Take joy, yes, but not support as a legal and righteous action.

Raping is a violent crime, someone giving an interview is not. He is not free to rape babies or advocate for said raping because he is committing a crime and encouraging others to commit crimes. The white nationalist in this instance has neither committed a crime nor encited violence by giving an interview.

I’m saying that if you resort to punching someone in the face, it’s safe to say you have lost the argument, even if you destroyed your opponent in all previous areas and logically make sense. Unprovoked physical violence is unacceptable.

Fighting against an oppressive government when they come after you =/= punching someone giving an interview

Let me say it again.

The point is you feel so strongly that someone’s beliefs are dangerous that you believe attacking them is righteous. If someone you disagree with felt the same way and did the same thing, you would denounce them. You have a different standard for yourself and for others.

Small correction, he wants non whites deported, not killed.

Do you believe others who think opposing views are dangerous and oppressive should similarly attack their opponents while they give interviews?

When you say “not tolerated” you mean “physically assaulted.”

And you don’t see a problem with that.

This is not a situation in which violence is necessary. He was being interviewed, not rounding up the Jews.

That doesn’t mean you should resort to violence. The ends don’t justify the means. Preventing fascism should not be done by assaulting political pundits.

You are celebrating physical violence against someone who has done nothing but talk.

Then fight back. Just don’t punch a pundit in the face when he has done nothing but express his views.

As far as I am aware, the person who got punched in the face for his political opinion has not advocates for crimes, but for the government to take actions to make it stop being a crime and then doing it. You can’t say someone’s future actions will be illegal and arrest them for something they haven’t done.

He means tolerated as in not physically assaulted for expressing their views, not tolerated as in accepted by society as a valid viewpoint.

That’s like saying because your enemy is committing atrocities to win a war, your only option is to commit them as well. Your atrocities are not any better because you’re conmitting them against a side with worse opinions.

Hate speech is speech, and therefore it falls under free speech. Hate speech requires a line to be drawn where someone can be arrested for expressing their beliefs, and I simply cannot support that.