I know what the paradox of tolerance is. Some of you here sound really young — like under 20 — and you've just recently learned about this concept and it's blowing your mind and so you repeat for lack of a better, deeper understanding. Yet I say again the untouched point: It does not give you carte blanche to react however you see fit.

That's not to say we shouldn't call out fascist behavior; that's not to say we shouldn't counter-protest when they voice their own bullshit. That's not to say that when they throw the first punch that we don't deliver two punchers harder in return. That's not to say that when they try to vote, we ensure that we vote in greater numbers to marginalize them. Across the globe we've sustained tolerant societies for quite a degree of time without a law that says, "to maintain civil order, we must all punch Nazis, or worse."

Yes, people should be intolerant to intolerance; but there still requires a degree of proportionality at play here. Punching a Nazi violates countless other laws of society we've identified for ourselves that help to also maintain a tolerant society, and until that Nazi punches someone themselves, then there is no reciprocation.

Please review the landmark case, Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Preemptively striking nazi (or kkk, etc.) consequences:

• It's a bait that often leads to martyrdom and increased recruitment. They take said video and go, "look at the tolerant left! Look at their hypocritical ideals about free speech!"

• Vigilante justice is risky, both for the victim and yourself: 1) The bar for evidence of vigilante justice is tenuous at best, and you may attack someone innocent, or more importantly someone who may escape from the propaganda in time but now may simply double-down. 2) This doesn't hold up in court. You will get charged with battery and receive a felony while the nazi goes free. Your time is better served dismantling the rhetoric online.

Don't become what you hate. Ironically the rhetoric you use here is also the logical loophole for which right-wing extremists rationalize their violence as to why they are the good guys.

Because in your scenario they are not a threat of imminent violence, and by being a vigilante you prevent society from enforcing consequences in the way the social contract defines - through the justice system.

Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different.

You didn't answer my questions. You first.

Edit: He couldn't answer.