The superficial one-sided hypocrite is you, as usual. I am merely pointing out everything that you deliberately put aside for ages : the role of culture and evironment, the collective responsability (a concept that neoliberals cannot grasp, just happy to simplify the world in autonomous monades, which is not how it functions at all), the very reason why there are rules against "freedom of speech" (laws against "hate speech", amongst others) and the functions that these rules fulfill (be it in civil society or on internet forums), the actual functions and effects of unchecked propaganda (from "le juif et la france" and "radio mille collines", to gulf wars and more invisible, mundane consequences in modern democracies in terms of exclusions, securitarism, and human rights destruction), the asymetry of legitimacy between education (progressive) and obscurantism (reactionary), and the asymetry of reception between education (complexifying the world against internalized ethnocentric common sense) and demagogy (riding pre-existing popular beliefs).

That is quite a package that you require to ignore, in order to maintain your socially convenient pretend neutrality (without any chance of understanding Godard's "objectivity is five minutes for Hitler and five minutes for the jews"). And your typically conservative focus on form and varnish (the level at which you set your "fire" metaphor) hides precisely the fact that we cannot deal with populist propaganda at a horizontal level (what the "fire with fire" metaphor would imply, if applied to content), treating it as if it was genuine reasoning, as if there was an equivalence of required cognitive processes between research and anti-intellectual demagogy.

There are societal issues to dig through, common beliefs to deconstruct, human realities to investigate, and to articulate together - and these things are actually being studied and discussed amongst people who care, be them implicated actors, academics or politicians. However, these cannot be discussed with retarded ultraconservative ignorant cunts, whose only role is to hammer and rationalize their most self-serving traditionalist worldviews. Having to respond to their dishonest rhetorics and absolute lack of interest for actual matters at hand is a whole other, futile, endeavour. This is why they are cast aside from serious discussions. When your dipshit friend doesn't even get what is questionnable in "tintin au congo", or when he unmasks his pretend rational xenophobia ("oh we would accept more refugees if we could") with spectacularly ignorant statements about asylum process (rejections=frauds), he shows that he is not even trying to get what is going on, but merely to dress his assholery in the least morally costly way - and that is the systematic modus operandi of his Party (with which only the swiss forumers are familiar), and its history of technically manipulative campaigns (from its fight against women's vote to its islamophobic hysteria). Pretending to not notice it, pretending to be arguing with a honest person, would be simply wasting time on a stupid diversion. It would also be a sisyphe work, as the issues would be more on the rhetorics themselves and the perpetually brought-back fake obviousness (scientifically deconstructed but impossible to bypass due to the depth of ethnocentric internalization especially where the very values of conservatism glorify traditionalist thinking and anti-intellectualism). And let's not even go to the arguments of slogans versus slogans.

So basically, you're back to your familiar argument : "Racism and antiracism should be shown the same respect or disrespect because they're like, just, opinions, dude, stop being racist against racists lol". The answer is still no. Neither relationally (backwards reactionary mentalities and all their self-serving rationalizations can go fuck themselves) nor administratively. Because society (and cognition itself) doesn't work the simple way you conveniently believe. You can go hug the wounded Blocher fanboy, and promise to listen to him as if he had a brain, but there are reasons why "go fuck yourself" is all his circular solipsist rhetoric will get from people who have the merest clue about the matters he brings up.

And this, especially in a thread about the most tragic consequences of self-indulgent ultraconservative discourses and cultural backwardness. Retain what you want, what you can, or what is most convenient, from my posts, but the gist of it is : large or petty, violent or symbolic discriminations, are the implementations of our cultural sense of normality - in what it excludes or includes. And we are all co-responsible for its definition. We are our culture's norms and values, we are what offers gratification or unease to discriminatory people or to (ideologically transversal) minorities. We validate the ones at the expense of the others. And I prefer the social stigma to stick on a transphobic/xenophobic person than on a trans/foreigner whose mentality I do not know.

If, on this forum, a specifically coloured person (including "white") hates racists, and a racist hates people of that specific colour, I will not treat both the same way, or be friends with both. The same goes at a broader social level. You'll judge them based on facade behaviour, I'll judge them on their mentalities. We sure don't define honesty and hypocrisy the same way.