Shitty ideas have consequences.

Most don't. Most threats are toothless. Most angry words pass. Many people learn and grow, even from just words. Everyone is worthy of redemption. You've kind of chosen the worst result you can find to prove the rule, but genocides are more a result of pieces of shit getting into power more than words.

Regardless. Let's roll with the nazi angle. Edge cases are fun.

At what point in time would violence been justified to prevent the bad stuff from happening? Hitler was just using words after all, until he had enough power. Then, well, you know.

I haven't studied the rise of him well enough to give you a sane answer. Did he do a full Palpatine - just acted like a kind old man until he started gassing invalids? Or was it clear what his intent was? There's obviously a line before pumping exhaust into sanitariums.

Or are you of the opinion that violence should never be used? Like if we saw Hitler 2 coming, we should just talk about it and not do anything violent. Even if it means the same very bad outcomes.

Direct threats are actionable, and there are times I'm okay violating my own rules mildly - if someone gives my niece or nephew shit for miscegenation I'll be pretty close to violence.

I do give wide berth for expression, though. We're also mixing something else here - the difference between individual actors you can have empathy for and a government meatgrinder.

The line for intolerance is between bad ideas and outright genocide and the line for the response is between mean words and guillotines. This is kind of my point, though, right? We need to have some function where we can define an ethical response to an unethical action.