Roughly translated, "everyone who isn't on my side is going to be killed by our side, which might upset you, but I would not consider that 'inciting violence'."
EDIT: I misunderstood "purge" in this context. I disagree that silence on moderating content is "violence" just as I disagree that anything you disagree with is "violence." But I do not believe content will be "purged" unless it's part of a movement to unseat democracy or coordinate violent actions.
I disagree with what he said, but you're seemingly doing your best to make his point.
He's saying that when a person don't like something, the recent trend is to just label it as "inciting violence". He then adds onto that by saying the idea of "silence is violence" means that anyone who does not speak out against the disliked thing is inherently guilty of "inciting violence" as well, so lurkers and moderates are not safe from being labeled.
Again, I disagree with what he said. However, accusing his post of threatening violence against everyone with whom he disagrees does kind of support his point.
I may have misunderstood the grandparent post, because I'm unclear on "you lurkers will be purged." Could you translate that part for me? Are you saying "purged" to not mean removed from society?
Recently, many high-profile social media posts and accounts have been blocked under the pretext of "inciting violence". In that context, I understood his post as saying that lurkers would also be blocked in the same way - as in "purged from social media". I'm definitely concerned with the way he worded it, though.
EDIT: I misunderstood "purge" in this context. I disagree that silence on moderating content is "violence" just as I disagree that anything you disagree with is "violence." But I do not believe content will be "purged" unless it's part of a movement to unseat democracy or coordinate violent actions.