I read your comment and wrestled with the dilemma of making the effort to rebut vs just down-voting you and walking away.

Firstly, your comment contains a bunch of unsubstantiated opinion.

"...we've already gone over the edge". What edge?

"Racism has been redefined...". Where? By whom?

"The intention of this change is racist in itself". Who's intention? The 'racism redefiners'? If they're a large group, how can they all have a unified intention? Is there some manifesto you can point to, or something that exposes the 'intention'?

"What people likely have a problem with...". The use of the word 'likely' tells me you're just guessing here.

"...all the OTHER racists". This implicitly acknowledges the banned people mentioned are in fact racists, but it sounds like you're defending these racists by pointing out that there are different racists being treated differently. "Stop picking on OUR racists! There's some other racists over there too!".

"These bans are political...". How are these political? Do you have any data to show that takedowns vs takedown requests vary significantly by political view.

"If these racists were A) a real problem...". If racism is a problem, and these people are racist, then by definition, these racists are a problem. Given you've acknowledged (implicitly above) that these people are racists, then you must be suggesting that racism isn't a real problem.

"...singled out...". Do you have evidence that no other 'factions' (to use your word; I'd say 'flavours') of racists have not been taken down? Remember, some being left up doesn't mean that none have been taken down.

"...then people might believe this is fair". While I'm sure some people don't believe this is fair (you might be one of them), do you have any evidence to show that this is a commonly held view?

"The modern rise of white supremacists in the West is being spurred by racist politics; it's almost as if they want to corner these people into extremist ideas." This has to be one of the most atrocious arguments I've ever heard. Let's leave aside that the racist roots behind many political groups (e.g. Klan, Nazis) go back decades if not way into the 19th century. Your argument here is like saying that a rise in domestic violence is being spurred by feminist ideas.

"...they want to corner these people into extremist ideas". No one is making racists more extreme. Racist ideas and 'theories' (to the extent that these exist in any cogent form), are largely unchanged over time. What has happened is that the bulk of western society has been, and continues to, redefine what is 'acceptable'. Racists now (like chauvinists) find themselves on the other side of a shifting boundary. No one has 'cornered' them, they just haven't moved while society has.

"I am an adherent to Daryl Davis' way of dealing with racism". Good. His approach is centered on educating racists. However this approach is not at all at odds with blocking hate speech from virtual 'town squares' (which are actually 'corporate plazas').

"... meant to consolidate far-leftist power". Firstly, to consolidate power, the far-leftists would need to be in power. Manifestly untrue. Secondly, unless the Communist Party of America are still alive and kicking, there is NO party that I'm aware of that would be considered far-left by any reasonable person outside of the US (where political definitions are so skewed they no longer make sense).

I'd also point out that the fact you are using a throwaway account to post makes me doubt that you have any intention of engaging honestly on this subject.

EDITED: s/taken left up/left up/