> * An argument should be able to stand on its own regardless of which people believe in it or use it.*

Which is why I continued on with addressing the argument.

> Lots of people have very awful company (take for example Hollywood actors associating with predators)

False equivalency I'd say. Yes, the entertainment industry as a whole SUCKS. But if you think about it for even a second, you'll realize there is a difference between being an actor and being an open Nazi.

You didn't give me an argument you gave me a twitter thread. The argument I interpreted from the thread was if you let your bar be associated with a Nazi (because you served them) then down the road they will invite their other Nazi friends and eventually your bar will become a Nazi bar. In the context of this HN thread I take this argument to mean, well Null is associating with people who harassed this woman to death, therefore Null supports it. Which is why I gave the response I did.

Close, but you're missing the point. It becomes a Nazi bar, regardless of the owner's intentions for the bar. So arguing the semantics of one admin's beliefs is irrelevant.

What defines it being a Nazi bar? One patron? A dozen? A certain percentage of the patronage?

Also irrelevant. The Nazi bar is a metaphor.

A metaphor that can't be examined for implications has no value.

Metaphor for what? Supporting harassment to the point of suicide? There's lots of harassment on almost every social media site so the question of what defines it 'going over the edge' so to speak is a very important one to me.