Furthermore, is it really up to a book review site to solve the problem of identity and anonymity on the Internet? Seems like the wrong place in the stack to focus on that.
No, BLM began in reaction to a hispanic person shooting a black person who was beating him up, and directly led to unprovoked and extremely violent attacks by blacks on white people, literally saying "This is for Trayvon!"
BLM does not really address the underlying problem of conflict but has led to acts of murder and terrorism in the name of racial justice.
I don't think anyone seriously questions whether the non-approval of Merrick Garland was done in good faith or not. Rather, the phraseology used is whether it was constitutional. McConnell didn't use a pretext, he flat out acknowledged what he was doing, and that it was constitutionally his prerogative.
This seems to blur the lines between "hate speech is a thing" and "hate speech should be banned." They are fundamentally different questions, and conflating them invites the normative fallacy.
Surprised you're not being heavily downvoted already. (I don't agree with that, just surprised.)
I do however think extreme hate speech is a real thing, it's just misapplied to the point where anything anyone disagrees with is labeled hate speech.
Because at the end of the day, all negativity is based on hate, right? If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all (which is a nice convenient bromide for eliminating real critical thought.)
Watched Nouriel absolutely destroy Joe Lubin in a debate at Lubin's conference, in front of hundreds of Eth (and presumably Lubin) supporters, who by the end had no doubts who won. And yes, quite a nice guy in private conversation.