He doesn't present it as an opinion. He doesn't even present it as an argument. It would be a stretch even to say he presents his opinions as fact. He sees a word that represents his ideological enemies, and he sees a word that causes visceral reactions of disgust in bystanders, and he resolves to use those two words in the same sentence as often as possible, so that the connotations of one will bleed into the other. There's a reason this kind of attack is called a `smear.'

In this thread, he takes questions of the actual harms as settled, and concludes that taking the most extreme and divisive action possible is the only possible option. MOST NOTABLY, he says nothing about Austin, who was the one making the decision to invite Hanania because he wanted Hanania at the event.  Instead he goes after Oliver, who is multiple levels removed the decision, and only provides `solutions' focused on harming Oliver's career and personal reputation.

He was 86'ed from Summer Camp; later on staff had a discussion of what they would do if, hypothetically, he bought a ticket to Manifest. Saul had final say and decided Vassar would not be banned. In the end, the hypothetical was never tested, as Vassar did not attempt to purchase a Manifest ticket. 

Just to clarify for my own benefit: 

• Yarvin wasn't there there as an attendee or as an invitee.
• Michael Vassar wasn't there as an attendee or as an invitee, and you have no evidence that he even attempted to purchase a ticket.
• No one holding the wrong views on the historicity of the Holocaust was invited to give a talk, and you have no evidence that Austin or Oliver ever considered extending an invitation to such a person. 

Of these points, there was only legitimate confusion over the Vassar one. Omitting these points would not only make the post epistemologically cleaner and more concise, but also save you the trouble posting corrections down in the comments. 

You will forgive me if this colors the conclusions I draw from your post.