I remember a time when this set of ideas was well known and understood, and routinely discussed for the benefit of civic enrichment and historical background. It was also well known that some holdouts were holding on to the ideas, but they were generally assumed to be cranks and their numbers were small enough to ignore.
Then the internet. And their ideas were able to find purchase where they hadn’t, and to grow like a hateful tumor. Even then they were at least nominally a minority view. And then they found a path to power, and public vocal support became mainstream.
Perhaps there was such widespread support for violence and hatred and malice before, but it was so shunned it couldn’t find its voice. That’s a pretty grim possibility but I accept it’s a real one.
Or perhaps the attitude that all ideas are welcome combined with their amplification has expanded the base of people it could attract.
In either case, I’m less concerned about whether a hateful viewpoint has easy access to eyes and ears, regardless of the size of the population holding those views, than the impact it has on those they hate.
If (hypothetically) 35% of the population were literal nazis literally trying to get a genocide going, and the mainstream were trying their best with available measures to limit that possibility by excluding their views from most outlets commonly accessed by the remaining 65%, I’d say that’s a welcome relief for the most vulnerable among their targets.
I don’t know how society benefits from the presence of hate in the public debate. Sure, the people who espouse hate are left out and pity for them. But what does their view contribute that we don’t already know? Are we actually better off with their views being a part of shaping our future?