https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty
What level of violence is too much in response to being offended by someone else's words or nonviolent actions?
Many in the Islamic world consider that response just.
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.
They were if you define Fascism the same way certain religious groups do.
I mean, ffs, read the first few paragraphs on the guys wikipedia page before you defend him.
The fact you think I am is why I don't want you hitting people for being "fascist" when you don't know what the Hell that is.
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.
Look up the history of Weimar Germany. That's what "hitting Fascists" accomplishes. Anyone who wants that must be a Fascist, like you.
If you can level a criticism at violence during the Weimer Republic, it's that is was too unfocused, with monarchists, social democrats and communists (who, indeed, were the original organization structure known as "Antifaschistische Aktion", or colloquially, Antifa) all beating each other up as much as they did nazis.
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.
This would be like me calling the Oklahoma City bombers "average americans".