Without trying to mindread what he is trying to accomplish, it is worth noting that he has described the phenomenon vividly, and I think accurately. You can find people in comments sections everywhere who mutter darkly about revolution and what people won't put up with much longer. I can add that my mental-health crisis data over 35 years is similar: threats of violence with political overtones comes from the right more often. Much more.
And yet the violence does not seem to follow. In both the national experience and my mental-health observation, the actual violence comes more from those who vote with the Democrats. The whole broad picture deserves some attention. It is true that the most violent districts across the nation, especially black and hispanic areas, are enormously Democratic. Additional violence with a political or social spin - union, anti-globalist, campaign-office bombing, or church-targeting - also tends strongly to come off the left side of the debate. Note also that in any group the number of people who actually move to violence is small, so even in these violent, bright-blue districts, the great majority of people are not violent criminals.
And yet. The rhetoric from the dark corners of the right is much more violent. I don't think it's close. It comes in different flavors, some racist, some nominally libertarian, some paranoid, but it's not subtle.
What gives? Do the violent people on the left just not advertise it that much, leaving the comments sections to the extremely nonviolent white urban liberals? Or is the verbal violence porn from the right a sort of woofing - barking to warn off threats, with actual aggressive violence requiring a much higher threshold? Bullying might be a fair question to explore, but I don't think cowardice is. A lot of these guys - they do seem to be almost entirely male - have military and even combat experience, so I don't think they are Caspar Milquetoast types showing off.