An effective way to suppress hate speech is to critique it and even to ridicule it.
I think however, that ridiculing often achieves the opposite effect, making you the enemy in the eyes of those susceptible to the hate speech.
How do you define those people? My view is that hate speech is badly defined concept because it is predicated on assumption that people like this exist.
But I don't think we should accept that such people exists. People should have freedom, and that freedom includes responsibly to act in moral way. By saying that somebody is "susceptible to (hate) speech", you're denying their agency.
I recently saw a critique of satire[0] that mentioned white supremacists tend to be fans of movies like Apt Pupil which, while criticizing Nazism, still portray it as powerful and potent. But the Producers, which literally portrays an attempt at an in-universe pro Hitler play (albeit for in-universe subversive reasons) and similar parody content isn't well received by them, because it refuses to take them seriously.
So yes, while ridicule might make more enemies, it can also serve to make those enemies less powerful.