Honestly it is a waste of time to explain anything to you. It isn't just this last time or I wouldn't have said anything, but the last several times you've quoted me and said anything were completely nonsensical and I just rolled with it. It should have been perfectly clear when I said "in the comments", and yet, it wasn't.
From the simple fact that it was not clear, it should be obvious that it was not clear.
Actually. I had no problem noodling out that he was bashing people who make the argument that those on "the left" are violent for attacking the poor harmless neo-**** on the bus.
Ironically, I'm in agreement with your response, despite it being a misunderstanding of the original intent. Those on "the left" do kinda set this thing up. Every time you fight to defend someone's right to burn a flag, or depict Jesus guzzing someone else's man juice in an art show, or any other form of offensive speech (often intentionally offensive so as to get a reaction), you're also, for good or bad, defending someone else's right to wear a swastika armband, or wear a "god hates ****" t-shirt, or any other form of equally offensive speech (also, often designed to get a reaction).
That is, if you're actually arguing the issue as a "speech is free, even if, and even especially if, it's offensive to others". The problem with the Left, is that they tend to want speech they like and which doesn't offend them to be free, while speech they don't like to not be free. Which creates a bit of an inconsistency.
I'll provide the exact same statement I made about the riots in Charlottesville. It's possible to condemn violent actions (like punching someone who does not appear to have taken any aggressive action first), while still disagreeing with the speech of the person whom the violent action was targeted. I don't find anything inconsistent about that at all. The guy with the armband was, as much as I disagree with it, still merely exercising his free speech rights. I didn't see anything in the linked article to suggest that he took a single violent action against anyone. He wore an armband and was alleged to have harassed a black man (again though, unless he threatened the person, that's also still free speech).
The guy who walked up to him and punched him committed assault. Period.
Let me be absolutely clear. I'm not defending the neo-**** guy. I'm not defending his opinions. My concern here is the growing perception by some in our society that the correct response to speech that is not liked is violence (it's what antifa is all about). And also a growing acceptance among others of the same. "he had it coming" is a terrible excuse IMO. Why is this a concern? After all, this just happened to a neo-****, right? We don't like them, right? You're not one of them, right? The problem is that once this become acceptable behavior, it creeps out of the obvious "bad people" and into "people we don't like for other/any reasons".
We already see rhetoric on the internet essentially claiming that anyone who is conservative or votes GOP is a neo-****, bigot, racist, hater, etc. See this constantly. How much of a step to say "well, that guy who just got punched had it coming, because he voted GOP, so he's a terrible person anyway"? Not much. Heck, we've already seen cases of this happen (assaults on folks for voting GOP, at least). If the guy had been wearing a Trump MAGA hat, how much different would the comments have been? I'm quite certain we'd have seen similar "he had it coming" comments, laughter about it, etc.
And yeah. That's troubling.