Thanks for engaging, L0la. I appreciate the discussion, but I think there's a fundamental flaw in this framework.

You say they "assume authority over others", but I watched the journalist's videos. I saw a few small websites where racists meet each other in their corner. There was zero factual danger from these websites. I saw swastikas, extremist people expressing opinions - sure, abhorrent opinions - but just opinions. They weren't exercising authority over anyone. They were organizing among themselves.

For me, it seems the opposite - CCC (which is de facto an institution at this point) and these hackers are the ones assuming authority over others. They decided which groups deserve infrastructure and which don't. They exercised power to destroy spaces they disapprove of. That's assuming authority.

With the same logic, we could now attack "black-only" sites, or any nationalist sites, or any group organizing around identity. The principle "they're trying to assume authority" is so broad it justifies attacking almost anyone you disagree with.

Democracy itself is fundamentally about "assuming authority over others." That's what voting is - 51% assuming authority over the other 49%. If you're really against people assuming authority over others, it would be far more consistent to support sabotaging all democratic political parties, not just the ones you personally don't like.

The "paradox of tolerance" doesn't solve this. Everyone believes they're fighting intolerance. White supremacists think they're defending against forces trying to destroy them. This framework and theirs seems structurally identical - both claim the right to preemptively attack because the other side is "intolerant". But this is exactly how tribal conflicts escalate into endless cycles of retaliation.