And I add to it, "is it likely to be a harbinger of the downfall of society?" No....
There are a number of people in the US who advocate, defend and/or carry out violence, shutting down speech and so on against people they don't like. Left wing anarchists (who are a small minority, but can still cause real damage), in particular, seem to favor this. In my college town, for example, anarchists disrupted a meeting held by a nonprofit that was aimed at discussing ways to help the local homeless population, because the meeting organizers didn't submit to their demands to add LGBT issues to the meetings agenda. They also sabotaged and vowed to destroy a small vegan bakery here based on a one-sided claim that they had mistreated a employee. Then you have bigger things, that involve much more than just anarchists, like the Milo rioting and other attempts to prevent controversial figures from speaking at Universities.
I don't think we're about to approach the downfall of society or anything, but I do see this stuff as a large enough problem that it's worth speaking out against it. Richard Spencer being punched is just one small instance, in the grand scheme of things, and of course, on its own it's not a big deal. When it becomes broadly defended, I see that as a larger problem. It's still probably not of massive importance on its own, but it's one of many things that should be spoken out against.
I think a lot of people don't realize that when you justify something against people who you don't like, or people whose ideologies you don't like (I don't like right wingers' ideology either for the most part), you risk making it more acceptable against people who you wouldn't want to see this sort of thing happen to as well. That's the whole point of free speech, for example.
What I cannot support is attacking people for some nebulous possible future attack. Once you start attacking folks for ideas, you become the aggressor , I don't hate violent ******** that want to hurt people I like I simply hate violent ********.
Yeah, I mean this was basically some of the logic used against Communists under McCarthyism, wasn't it? That being a Communist, or even simply a "suspected" Communist, made people a threat and an enemy of the state? I haven't studied that time period much, so I apologize if I'm getting it wrong, but that's my basic impression.
Also, think how easily this sort of thinking could be used to justify violence against Muslims.
