[baudolino]

six weeks ago I would have regarded the idea of doing this as inimical to the principles of free discourse and debate that I feel are fundamental to democracy and indeed to small-l liberal civilization in general.

now I find myself wondering whether my principles are being contaminated by the immense personal anger I feel, or whether perhaps my principles weren't as rationally derived as I had previously believed.

[epistasis]

Then you may find this concept interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Living in an open society does not mean tolerating those who aim to end the open society. The altright, as a rewarming of white nationalism, which is a rewarming of Nazism, seems to not be such a huge fan of our open society.

[vixen99]

What assumption laden, lazy use of words. You throw them around as smears and pretend they have specific meaning rather than the emotive symbols they are.

Nigel Farage who convinced a majority of Brits to exit the EU is generally regarded as being altright. Do we therefore conclude that this British majority went along with someone who supports a 'rewarming of Nazism'. This is vile garbage.

Identifying targets precisely and offering arguments is preferable to sloppy innuendo.

[epistasis]

Though you have many insults, it seems that the heart of your argument is:

"Nigel Farage is altright. Altright can't be white nationalism because then Farage would be white nationalist."

However the alt right is not defined by Nigel Farage, rather if Nigel Farage wraps himself in that term than he is defined by it rather than defining it, as it predates him.

Reading anything about the alt-right will show that my estimation of it as white nationalism is correct. Look at

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the...

Which points to alternativeright.com

This idea that "this idea is bad, and my politician accepts this idea, therefore this idea can't be bad" is classic backwards thinking. Your insults may reveal that this has hit a sore spot for you. We need to be able to talk about these things rationally, and not emotionally.

[solipsism]

six weeks ago I would have regarded the idea of doing this as inimical to the principles of free discourse and debate that I feel are fundamental to democracy and indeed to small-l liberal civilization in general

Then you probably have not read the article.

EDIT: inserted critical "not"

[baudolino]

I did, in fact. What do you mean?