Yesterday, Ricky Gervais tweeted what should’ve been a pretty universally acknowledged truth about political violence:

Whatever side you're on politically, 'left' or 'right', you don't need violent factions joining you or representing you. They bring your cause into disrepute. They don't even care about your cause, they're just in it for the violence. Denounce them. — Ricky Gervais (@rickygervais) July 1, 2019

But Daniel Hoffmann-Gill, an actor you’ve probably never heard of, disagreed. And he decided to share his thoughts on why it’s OK to beat up “neo-Nazis” and people like Andy Ngo:

Indeed Stephen. We seem to have forgotten that many legitimate political causes needed to utilise violence to progress their cause & that when it comes to neo-Nazis, given their track record, no inch can be given. Depressing. — Daniel Hoffmann-Gill (@danielh_g) July 1, 2019

Yes, in the case of ACTUAL Neo-Nazis like this one. But the people that were attacked in Portland this weekend weren't so. Antifa were looking to fight Proud Boys and when PB were somewhere else, they turned on @MrAndyNgo who was just filming and reporting (his job) — Ben ?? (@horne1995) July 1, 2019

Ngo is a journalist the same way Yaxley-Lennon is. In other words he ain’t. And the idea that he isn’t a vile muck spreader of the highest order and a serial lair, involved in inciting hatred towards minority groups. No need to cc him in, he won’t love you more Ben. — Daniel Hoffmann-Gill (@danielh_g) July 1, 2019

Like Ricky said, they’re just in in for the violence. If you want to win an argument, have a better moral position. Covering your face, ganging up and punching people is mere thuggery. Cowards, the lot of ‘em. — Steve Metcalf (@CreativeBS) July 1, 2019

This is not an accurate reflection of the important role violence has played in political history for causes we now see as legitimate. Hope that helps. — Daniel Hoffmann-Gill (@danielh_g) July 1, 2019

Twitchy staple @neontaster was one of many people who called Hoffmann-Gill out for rationalizing left-wing violence:

I'm blanking on an instance in which beating random people in the streets was done for causes we now see as legitimate. https://t.co/iPvB5yjjBs — neontaster (@neontaster) July 1, 2019

For his troubles, Hoffmann-Gill blocked him:

Really? I got blocked for this? I didn't insult or attack him. I legitimately just countered his point. https://t.co/8igX5o1lDz — neontaster (@neontaster) July 1, 2019

But that didn’t stop @neontaster for expanding on his original point:

Most causes we now see as legitimate were ones that people used to get beat in the streets for supporting, not doing the beating as a way to promote them. — neontaster (@neontaster) July 1, 2019

I know this phrase is played out, but beating Nazis in the streets was also a major contributing factor in how we got Hitler. Because eventually the Nazis emerged as the better side in beating people in the streets, which then translated to violent political power. — neontaster (@neontaster) July 1, 2019

Nazis were coddled by cops and judges compared to Communists in 1920s-1930s German street fighting. — Brian Donohue (@ennuigogo) July 1, 2019

More so in the 30s after the Nazis started to gain national power, but my point is that street violence back then wasn't "Nazis beating people." It was "political gangs battling each other." — neontaster (@neontaster) July 1, 2019

You're wrong about this — PrivateJoeArmstrong (@PrivateJoeArms1) July 1, 2019

LOL Hindenburg used Nazi-on-Communist violence in Berlin to oust the Prussian government. But yeah I'm totally wrong. — neontaster (@neontaster) July 1, 2019

I love the people who are very angry because they think I meant the Nazis were victims here. They were not, but they emerged victorious in the street violence wars, which is the point – violent methods ensures that the most ruthless win. — neontaster (@neontaster) July 1, 2019

Apparently offering insight as to how the Nazis rose to power is actually a deafening dog whistle. At least according to the two clowns behind the wildly popular @RacismDog Twitter account:

Woof.

I see the woof woof boys are still salty about me even after blocking me. https://t.co/lI1NuU54YC — neontaster (@neontaster) July 1, 2019

Who watches the WatchDog?

How are those tweets even racist? — Holden (@Holden114) July 1, 2019

It’s simple, really: they’re not.

That dude has had a hard on for me for a while. Just wants an excuse to cry. — neontaster (@neontaster) July 1, 2019

Honestly, we feel bad for the dog. His owners seem like real jackasses.

What you said was 100% true. Not sure what is controversial or "racist" about it. — Jim Mason (@JimBobgraholski) July 1, 2019

This is ridiculous. You're stating historical fact. Like from a textbook. — Caesar Pounce (@caeser_pounce) July 1, 2019

It’s even more baffling is that they tried to get paid for doing this. — Donez (@SomecallmeBguti) July 1, 2019

Are people still sending those idiots money for tweeting "woof"? — BT (@back_ttys) July 1, 2019

Heh.