> What do you mean by this? In what circumstances do you think it's acceptable to make these comments?

Excellent questions, and ones that are complicated to answer in any truly objective sense. The measuring stick I would maybe use to judge an appropriate context would be the same as how we would maybe treat a particular interest or political stance.

Does it feel appropriate to minimize someone else's political views to their face in a casual group setting? Probably not.

Does it feel appropriate to share a political rant in one's workplace chat that may have deeply personal implications? Maybe not. But if it did happen, could the offended party forgive the person who shared? That'd be favorable.

Does it feel appropriate to share the same political rant with a close friend? Sure, why not? Family? Definitely, if you're on good terms.

How about on Facebook? Twitter? Sure -- a point of disagreement is a few scroll wheel clicks away from passing over it, if a cool, measured response can't be mustered.

We are surrounded with opposition daily in various forms. The measure of our character is judged by how we choose to handle those moments. Sometimes walking away is a more mature response, because it acknowledges that the person is capable of thriving despite their opposition. It indicates that their ego is in their own control, not swayed by any insult that passively comes their way.

In the event you have a persistent harasser, it's time to either respond in kind, or get help from someone with the power to stop such harassment, but a single passive statement of belief or opinion shared is hardly even close to classifying as harassment.

> Who judges this and how are they chosen to do so?

Another tricky one, and very difficult to qualify.

If I had to choose, I might say the military if I've entrusted them to have intelligence data and a general pulse of potential threats within or outside a nation. Maybe that trust is misplaced? Who then would I turn to? The media? Would the media faithfully represent the issue in an unbiased manner? They've done very well to shatter that trust, as a collective institution.

Who then? Citizen journalists and average people recording and sharing video footage of evidence of mistreatment, but shared en masse? Reports of in the hundreds? Thousands? That'd be a good indicator that something's amiss.

Parents approaching their school boards en masse across the country to confront Critical Race Theory's damaging effects on school-aged children leading to fundamentally racist views against white people? That's a pretty good indicator something's wrong, especially if there hadn't been a past history of malicious / nefarious confrontations of the same sort, to where the recent recordings and reports of this happening are objectively novel situations within a larger period of time.

Despite those reports, there still would need to be a fairly unbiased judge of the broader situation, and one (or many) who could act decisively in enough time to prevent catastrophe should a threatening scenario for any given race or group arise.

It's the same sort of question as "did the Allies act soon enough against Nazi Germany's genocide?" or "did anyone act soon enough or... at all, against the Bolsheviks?"

Well, people finally acted, but was it enough? Or was the potential disaster they prevented grander than what had already been committed?

I couldn't confidently say there is anyone on Earth who is qualified to answer that question outside of God Himself.