A Double Standard?

Then it becomes a question of how much trust you can have in the legal system to deal with such troublemakers, whether it's because said troublemakers either know how to exploit the legal system in their favour or are already part of said system (e.g. the BLM movement started in response to officers carry racially-motivated acts of police brutality against civilians). They can't cross the line if they are able to move the line.

The context is what's important, though. There's a difference between hearing about Nazism in a neutral setting like a history class and hearing about it from a vocal pro-Nazi advocate like Richard Spencer. A person's ability to see through Spencer's rhetoric hinges on their ability to properly contextualise Nazism as an inherently damaging worldview - if they are unable to do that for whatever reason, then they can end up taking his side. That's the whole idea of not just learning what the Nazis did, but that what they did was inherently bad - so that we know better than to ever think that they were good. When Spencer's entire thesis amounts to "Nazis are actually good", it flies in the face of decades of seemingly conventional wisdom; anyone who agrees is either ignorant at best or doesn't care at worst. If actively trying to stop Spencer is "just trying to manage the decline", then leaving him to his own devices means that this decline continues at its original speed - if you still think otherwise, then you can ask President Hillary how expecting people to know better is working out for her.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

The idea that most people can't figure out that Nazis are bad outside of an academic setting is really condescending, and completely without merit. You talk about this issue like there's some kind of demonstrable (never mind significant) rise in Nazism, seemingly based on nothing more than a few extremely well-publicized events that were almost universally condemned, and even outright mocked.

This implies that violence is the only way to "[try] to stop Spencer."

The point is that the same logic which would make your remedies necessary also makes them insufficient. So either you're wrong, and we shouldn't do it, or you're right, and there's basically nothing to preserve because people can't self-govern.

I think you sacrificed pith for coherence here. Trump being elected (nevermind the 3 million vote deficit, which undercuts the entire premise all by itself), bad as he may be, in no way implies that people are ready to embrace Nazism, for crying out loud.

And even if it did, the idea behind self-determination isn't that people always make the right choice, but that they have to live with the consequences of their choices, and learn from them.

On top of all that, the guy you're using as the reason to start curbing our rights is, last I checked, the same guy who'd sit near the top of that process right now, so the argument is more or less self-defeating, too.

Nope.

The whole idea is to pick a set of rights that work well even when you hate the person in power. If the rules fluctuate entirely based on who wins a given election, then you're basically living in a Monarchy with shorter lifespans: you're happy when you get a "good" king and mad when you have a "bad" one, even though the real problem is that you have a king at all. And now people want to, in their fervor and frustration, drift back to that, and double down on the same government power that made this kind of policy whiplash possible in the first place.

Exactly, that is why the other point you mentioned is in my opinion a better one.

__________________
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

Maybe it's time to make amendments to amendments to clarify and apply to current times.

Couldnt agree more. Ridiculous we are still applying an amendment made when we had muskets and a "well armed militia" was a meaningful thing and... oh wait... which amendment were you wanting to amend exactly?

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

Probably the ones where the interpretation is too broad and all encompassing.

Richard Spencer is not a Neo-Nazi.

I find it remarkable that the video in which he gets punched prompting the "punching nazi?" debate he specifically distinguishes himself from neo-nazis.

He's an ethno-nationalist. They're not the same thing.

He may very well be an ethno-nationalist but the vast majority of the media perceive him as Neo Nazi and it's all about perception, isn't it.
Having said that, I have to remind you that ethnic nationalism was used as a means to grow the Nazi state and that is really what most of the opposition is about.