You can take anything out of context and present it as something else to make an argument, and it goes both ways. People can take something totally benign and present it as if it were a white supremacist argument.
It's not hard to imagine this being stretched to limit my speech. I'm white, and I'm also a nationalist - one who believes that nation states are the best means of managing humans who have a shared culture and traditions. How much of a stretch would it be to call me a "white nationalist?" I mean, lexicographically, it is an accurate use of two adjectives which describe me. However, I'm certainly not a "white nationalist" in the sense that might suggest I am in any way a white supremacist.
If white nationalist content is banned, does this mean that I cannot discuss nationalism because I am white - and therefore, a loon can trivially make the link that if I am white, and nationalist, then I must be a white nationalist? Doh!
What about white people who wish to celebrate their cultural heritage, peacefully, by suggesting that they should not have to give up or sacrifice their culture or traditions for fear that they might offend someone. Of course, it doesn't take imagination to think that a loon my consider this to be "white supremacism", because it is already happening!
The idea that there exists some large "exterminate nonwhites" network is a cartoon version of reality. There exist a small number of deranged humans who think that their skin color makes them superior, and an even smaller fraction of them who think that therefore, they must kill people who do not share that skin color. These are not at all representative of whites, nationalists, conservatives or free speech advocates, who are the real targets of recent censorship.
I mean, Alex Jones might be a nutcase, but I've not heard any evidence suggesting he has been calling for exterminating people. He has publicly apologized countless times for his handling of the Sandy Hook case which is the alleged reason he is banned. And Sargon of Akkad is an outspoken critic of white nationalists, but if we take this one word he said out of context then we've got him cornered!
You are the one pretending pal. You are pretending slippery slopes do no exist and that rules and laws only apply to the thing they were originally written to apply to. What utopia has this ever happened in? The only rules which can't be abused are the rules which don't exist in the first place. A rule which is in place is a rule which will be abused. Selective enforcement of rules also exists, and is commonly used to politically censor one side while openly allowing the opposing viewpoint.
Now if there are real cases of incitement to commit any crime against people because of their skin color, or anything else even, then I'm all for enforcement of rules and laws as they should be. This isn't what the censorship and assaults on free speech are about at all.