Unsure if this is serious but Schadenfreude is somewhat like the satisfaction you get when someone gets karma/gets what you think they deserve (in a negative way).

Nah I think if an American killed Putin (ex-Russian or not), all hell would probably break loose

Whats the strawman then in this case?

That is particularly unfitting in this case though. Because the people that voted Milei are still in favour and the people that didnt are still against him. The people protesting are not the ones who voted him.

"I do not imply that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion". - Karl Popper, clarifying that statement you cited

One shouldn't kill a communist that is simply voicing their opinion, one should however kill a second Stalin.

A strawman is an argument, not a question. You fit your description of being disingenuous pretty well though I must say. Is there anything constructive u wanna say too or just this?

Nobody (?) is expecting everyone to have empathy with him, but not empathizing with someone and enjoying their murder are two different things.

Celebrating his death is a disgrace to democracy and the human dignity. And that doesnt make a person much better than him.

That may be the case but whatever theocratic white-supremacist trump-supporter he was, I think advocating for the murder of a person because he advocated for the murder of a person (or at least implied that) doesn't make one any better than him, if that makes sense.

People are talking about him having spread hatred (which he did) and are at the very same time spreading hatred about him. Quite ironic in a way...

Could you elaborate on that hatred for feminists? Couldn't find much on him spreading hatred for feminists (apart from him disagreeing with them)

About his statements on trans people I was quite surprised (I acknowledge that is clearly hatred). I couldn't stop noticing, however, that his statements about trans people (implying that they should be murdered on the street) are almost the exact same thing people are saying about him (he deserved to be murdered like that). Both are - in my opinion - inhumane radical extremist positions and holding the latter, imo, gives illegitimely gives a justification to the latter (as in - murder on the basis of ideology being acceptable).

As a "person of reasonable intelligence" would have noticed, provided they had taken the time to actually understand that statement, I was at no point asking for a difference to be pointed out. Rather, I asked for the ethical reasoning that leads to the conclusion that voicing one's opinion is to be seen as worse than the murder of that person.

The issue is that if you think it's justified to kill people on the basis of views that you (radically) disagree with, then that same justification could be used by them to justify killing you, right?

(Also, I think calling him a nazi doesn't do the victims of actual nazis justice, the latter of whom certainly did more than verbally expressing a radical ideology; but this just on the side)