Opposing views on things like human rights and politics (which largely boil down to human rights) do not constitute a "difference of opinion". Someone liking strawberry ice cream while I don't is a difference of opinion.
Thinking that some people are "less than" because they are gay, trans, non-white, etc, or that people don't deserve basic medical care because they are poor are not "opinions" that deserve to be entertained or respected, and the people who view the world like this deserve to get dragged for it.
How is this so difficult for people to understand?
Watching the linguistic legerdemain here, where you see the incompetent magician palming the red queen in 3 card monty, at the specific point where you conflate "not an opinion" with "not an opinion I care to respect" as being the same thing while cobbling together your flawed axiom
I like the elasticity he shows in the very first sentence. Views on human rights aren't opinions, how do you know which views are about human rights? Everything is.
Then in the second paragraph he starts imputing motives, that certain views show evidence of thinking others are "less than", views I'm sure are not simply any view he disagrees with.
And then from there he's taken an extra step into his requirements for acceptable discourse, he's demanding others have a duty to not only research his own views on "human rights", but all other persons entire set of views and then from there also determine their unspoken motives all to ensure that these people who hold non-opinions are never platformed.