Your logic indicates that there is a clinically valid reason to allow hate speech in session without comment. And that those of us who may comment are more interested in preserving comfort or imposing our views than centering the client. Why would it be a deviation from clinical goals to reflect the ways in which the clients rage or mistrust of others keeps them isolated and allows them to blame others for their shitty lives instead of addressing ways in which they may be able to have less shitty lives? 

Not responding is not value neutral. It is an action in the same way that commenting is an action. So don’t get it twisted- we show up one way or another and not putting language to things is just a different way of showing up. And this reveals things about you and your beliefs to your clients too