@Dynamo Frokane
First and foremost, a person is entitled to an opinion, even if it is a bad one. Within free speech you cannot pick or choose what is or is not acceptable to say; there are some exceptions to this, such as threatening the life of someone with the perception to be that they can make good on it or in specific circumstances where forum dictates you cannot say certain words like "bomb" in an airport without consequence.
Okay so I agree, absolutely I did not express any desire to see him silenced by the government. I was simply stating that claims of his bigotry are not just left wing fake news rambling, so his critics should not be criticized for being untruthful, in this instance at least.
@Dynamo Frokane
Second, the issue is, is that he has been branded the wrong thing. For example, they labeled him the usual fare instead of correctly calling him an antisemite; being against Jews isn't racism, as "Jew" isn't a race, but it certainly is prejudice. No less, they resorted to crying foul and flailing, rather than confronting and exposing what a foolish perception that is. All they have is a "Here! Here!" moment which makes observers, like myself, sigh from lack of amusement. They might have had a point but they squandered it like fools. All they did was validate him within his own mind, as they are oft to do. It would be too difficult, in their perception, to confront him and host any sort of dialogue and make him out himself as being biased; they went digging instead.
Now you are right, he is an anti-semite but he is absolutely a racist as well, not only because he chooses to associate and agree with everything that racists say but in many examples not listed in this article he has shown passive careful endorsement for ethnostates.
EDIT:
I just read the article again; they don't even call him racist, they call him an anti-semite and a sexist, which according to the presented screenshots, appear to be very true. But in the video alone, he was seen walking with those with the swastika, agreeing and laughing along with the folks shouting the N-word at people, and showing immense support for Richard Spencer and David Duke, Its pretty safe to say that a non-racist wouldn't be doing these things. But maybe the article could have dont a slightly better job highlighting these things as I have.
Also you mention that they would find dialogue with him too difficult, which for one isnt really the job of an article to debate someones ideas, but you'll see they actually did try to reach out to him to comment which he replied 'I don't talk to fake news' which seems to be a very cowardly defense when nearly everything written about him has been proven to be true.
Lastly, mean words and uneducated opinions are not grounds for assault, let alone assault with a deadly weapon. They are and were more worried about his opinion than the fact he was attacked. I am sorry, but as much as I despise and want nothing to do with him personally - as I have said prior to not following or trusting any one person - he was still the victim of an attack.
In order to remain an impartial arbiter I must accept that my contrarian urge to his does not mean he is an acceptable target.
Well It should be noted that this was published quite a long time after his initial attack at the deplora-ball event, so Its not their responsibility to mention the attack with every article written about him over a year after it happened.
But regardless I absolutely agree that there is no excuse for meeting opinions with violence, no matter how much we dislike them. But I don't think anyone in this thread or even the article were saying anything to the contrary.
Anyway in short, I think the criticism against him is fair and accurate enough to where we can say any claims of 'fake news' being presented is a desperate and cowardly attempt to shy away from any revealing criticism of him.
1x Laugh
