Well, I'll give Alex Jones this much credit. In this scenario, it's like comparing a house cat to a Siberian tiger.
Whereas you cannot realistically expect a Harvard-educated Korean feminist woman to act out her frustrations against "white people", there's a much more legitimate danger that an Alex Jones, huckster as he may be, could indeed do exactly what he says, when pushed to the brink.
It feels silly to even point out, but we did not come up with the rule of law for women. They were only ever an after-thought, for over three thousand years, since the days of "The Code of Hammurabi". The focus has always been on men, and their potential capacity to act against the state and the society. "Hate speech" (or should we rather say, male speech) is only ever something that applies towards males, because males are the only ones deemed capable of acting out their hatred, and turning their words to action, in a manner that threatens the society. They are ultimately the ones capable of operating outside of the common parameters of society, relying on independence of action and self-validation to see them through, even when cast out from society. A woman, in almost every scenario, the extremely rare exception not included, can do no such a thing. Especially when already "well-adjusted" to the society, as a Harvard-educated person, of Asian diligence, is expected to be.
The society will always treat women differently, realistically speaking, even in the era of "gender equality". Because as we've seen under theocracies, monarchies, any form of government ever, the society and state always acts in its own interests, pragmatically, regardless of whether the state is pretending to be a Christian safe haven, or a progressive safe space, or whatever.
In realistic terms, men are always going to be seen as the real danger, socially-speaking. And more specifically, men like Alex Jones.
