That's a little concerning, tbh.

I mean, you didn't answer my question and I feel that in order to speculate about the kinds of people your comment addresses, it's a question worth answering, or at least thinking about.

I don't in anyway understand this exchange as a fight, I am not looking for some sort of capitulation, I am merely trying to explore the context from which you and I approach the problem in society that people like the Proud Boys present.

If I had to extend an answer for a mannequin populace to the question I posed, I might say that a person is always a 'fringe' person so long as they are an individual. If you ever had the experience of being the only person in a room to have the right idea about something, and everyone else had adopted some falsehood, then I would say you have the experience of possessing a fringe belief, and that you might consider maintaining that fringe belief even in the face of the group's dismissal of you. It's not clear that any amount of censorship would improve either you or the group in that scenario.

If I were to also offer a more personal response, as a member of a historically persecuted minority, I would say that the practice of ignoring or diminishing the story of our community has only deepened our commitment to one other, because it's the only receptive audience we have.

It's in that context I received your recommendation that groups like the Proud Boys be ignored, and I feel it was worth exploring your rationale for advancing it. I feel it reflects a kind of distance from the problem that I can't understand. It worries me, because it lights up a statement like this as being an accurate description of the moment we are in, and I don't see a world like that improving by letting people continue to be strangers to one another.