Yeah that seems to check out.
Wikipedia states he is imprisoned for life for the crime of genocide.
That outcome personally has my preference but to bring it to the matter at hand.
Op basically suggest that rather then incarceration for life they should be given the death penalty.
I cant see such thing as a threat. Because in so many “modern” places its the status quo. Definitely not as a offending expression to be banned.
Til the day we as a species evolve to a post death penalty world without state monopoly on violence such discussion are as normal as humanity itself.
Thats is in all honesty not how i read ops message though.
They want to make the dynamic where the organizers of ethnic cleaning are held accountable a set tradition. And the only names in context are Mussolini and Hitler.
The crux of this argument may be what we understand as an active Nazi.
To me Musk is an active Nazi, he speaks their ideology and caters to others that also do and employed its symbolism. But there is no proof that he is or was involved in organizing genocide.
So i don't think op is saying Musk deserves death (yet).
I also see many people who are openly racist and identify as Nazis. Spread hate. But don't actually engage in violence. Many of these are indoctrinated or born in such culture. I don't think they are a target for OP either.
I agree that some of these can decide to stop. which bring me to my truer understanding that these most of these people can learn to be better. Which is exactly my argument not to punish them with violence.
But the organizers who set the machines of death in motion cannot be redeemed this way. Hitler if he was alive can not be pardoned and given acces to the public world. We as a society must come to a consensus what to do with criminals like that.
Spending the remainder of their life in a maximum oppressive system with zero freedom is not a perfect solution. Neither is putting them to death. Both of these options can be supported with ethical arguments, there is no objective winner. Till we find ethical argument for an options that is objectively superior to both ,showing support in favor of the existing solutions is fair and has nothing to do with threatening someone.
I agree the sentiment of a public hanging doesn’t help to see it that way, but language is by default colors to carry emotional value and not only literal value.
I feel similar to “eat the rich” getting banned. No one who states that is seriously advocating for cannibalism.