If a person, because of their ideology, is capable of hate against others to the point of killing them, they should not get a free pass. This includes fascists, Ku-Klux-Klanners or Islamist radicals than blow themselves up, as well as those that condone that sort of behaviour.
I get it, you want to point out how hard, or even borderline impossible it is to delineate who is a fascist and who isn't, because you think people use the word to loosely.
Maybe they know the word better than you, though? Maybe they're not as oblivious to the dog whistles.
Well, either way, I don't really care where "the line" is here, because Richard Spencer is so clearly over it, it's a ridiculous argument to make. Because actually, often it is quite clear.
> Many in the Islamic world consider that response just.
It's fair to say most in the Islamic world would consider that response unjust and, more pragmatically, counter-productive. Don't let misconceptions get the best of you.
We went from punching (a form of activism you might not agree with, but one that arguably works to make fascists afraid of public appearances - like milkshakes) a genocidal nazi to outright murder with a extremist religious motive. And you even go on to paint that extremist like an average muslim. Islamophobic gargabe.
This would be like me calling the Oklahoma City bombers "average americans".
This person and the people killed at Charlie Hebdo were not fascist, so what your doing here is political misconstruction of my words.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
If a person, because of their ideology, is capable of hate against others to the point of killing them, they should not get a free pass. This includes fascists, Ku-Klux-Klanners or Islamist radicals than blow themselves up, as well as those that condone that sort of behaviour.