Just that the people who spread the views beyond just the "anti-Semites and white nationalists" seem to be both themselves.
We don't know how deep the anti-Semitism and white-nationalism go in America. We do know people have been unfairly labeled neo-nazis that's true, but how big is that issue? Is there a way to quantify it. Clearly a large enough portion are anti-Semites as they were able to have a march where they chant "Jews will not replace us"
I think Boghossian, Pluckrose, and Lindsay did more to spread antagonistic views toward critical theory than Breitbart or even Peterson. And they're center-left university professors, or they were until they started challenging the narrative after which I guess they became alt-right agents provocateurs?
Another thing: if the far left bullies moderates and center-rightists into saying the sky is green, so that the only people left with the guts to claim that the sky is blue are neo-Nazis and KKK members (who have nothing to lose by doing so anyway), does that make the sky any less blue? Does it justify a ban on claiming that the sky is blue? Does it justify dismissal of anyone who believes that the sky is blue as part of a sinister right-wing conspiracy?
This isn't just theoretical. Hollywood has produced a string of lazily written, but "woke" themed movies, allowing the directors and producers some form of plausible deniability. They can merely claim that negative opinions of their films are "linked" to racists and misogynists, and any bad word of mouth about the movie can thus be shut down. They can also expect only positive press coverage from then on out.
Less trivially, recently a couple of psychologists published a study that suggested there was no evidence of a racial disparity on fatal police shootings -- the race of neither the officer nor the civilian mattered in a statistically significant way to the probability of getting killed. They were forced to retract their study after it became "linked" to conservative commentators and BLM activists started calling for their heads. Assuming the study's methodology and results were sound, why should they be forced to retract it? Isn't scholarship about finding the truth no matter whose feathers it ruffles? I suppose when it ruffled the Church's feathers that was okay, but when it ruffles the Party Commissar's feathers, that's an entirely different kettle of fish?
Oh right. Foucault. There's no such thing as truth. The only thing the findings of any scientific inquiry can meaningfully accomplish is to bolster and reinforce this or that power structure. It's almost as if science itself is being undermined... but as Claudia "I can totally cite you convincing reasons why opinions that deviate too strongly from my own should be censored" Werner assures me below, the idea that Marxist philosophers are out to destroy Western civilization and all its boons is just a vague sinister conspiracy theory from the fevered imaginings of the far, far right...