Even from what you quote I noticed you took it as an endorsement of what it criticizes, but it goes on: > To be clear, sometimes the only way to win against a

Even from what you quote I noticed you took it as an endorsement of what it criticizes, but it goes on: > To be clear, sometimes the only way to win against a Nazi is to punch them. But we also need to understand and be ready to explain the reasons why racism, genocide and white nationalism are bad. This may seem simplistic and rudimentary, it may even make you angry, but we must be ready to explain to young people why these ideas are so poisonous. It is no longer enough to just point at the history and say “because.” or, as you said: > Kind of like "It's way better to combat "racial purity" ideologies (or any other speech) with more speech" Ironically, disallowing speech and interpreting it as the opposite of what it very clearly says are both closer together than they are to free speech. What's the point of being able to say something when you then feel free to turn it on its head? That's shifting the point of breakage. And is it some kind of joke that EliRivers got downvoted for stating what you should have realized, much less other readers; without even a response?