[krapp]

No. Society doesn't need to worry about whether it's tolerant enough of "nazis" (or any hateful, violent, extremist ideologues), nor do we all need to realize that our collective failure to be adequately sympathetic towards "nazis" justifies their extremism. The "nazis" are not the real victims here. They deserve the social and political punishment they get.

[SkyBelow]

>They deserve the social and political punishment they get.

If the "they" are the people supporting the punishment and torture of someone for reporting on corporate incompetence, and the manner of punishment is extremism, then your rationale leads to the extremism you want to punish. By this rationale, society deserves the extremism it gives rise to through its treatment of individuals who were not extremist before the treatment.

[krapp]

> By this rationale, society deserves the extremism it gives rise to through its treatment of individuals who were not extremist before the treatment.

It's a terrible rationale. The extremist ideology, itself, is unjustifiable regardless of the means by which it's acquired.

[alfromspace]

This is all just supposed to be self-evident? What even are you talking about? Be specific.

[krapp]

If you're truly baffled as to the context in which the term "nazis" is employed in reference to weev's political views as an exemplar, and don't understand how it can possibly be the case that such views and their advocacy deserve to be opposed by civilized society, I'm not going to be the one to hold your hand and gently teach you how the lessons of the last hundred years have led most of humanity to reach that obvious conclusion.

But really you're not confused at all, you're just trying to bait me into a tedious semantic argument in which you'll suddenly forget how English works and what words even mean, and I'm not wasting my time with that.