zlacker

>>thuuuo+(OP)
Oh please.

This article is completely correct of course. But there is zero hope that it'll be taken seriously at all.

Just the other day, here on HN someone seriously proposed the idea that hate speech doesn't lead to violence against minorities[1]. I pointed at the Rwanda genocide, and got voted down (a lot), because the OP claimed that 10% of deaths didn't prove my point. Then I pointed out that was at least 60,000 deaths, and that was downvoted too.

Enough people clearly want to ignore things which disagree with their world view that there is zero chance that this destabilising behaviour will stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15936785

>>nl+H4
When you post like this, what people hear is the story of how right you were on the internet, how wrong others were, and how they cravenly downvoted you. This only leads to more downvotes, and rightly so, since it's off topic and also a kind of pose.

This doesn't mean, of course, that you're wrong about genocide, ethics, Rwanda, etc. It means that if you want to post about these things you're responsible for separating out the dross that people will otherwise react to. The contrast between the magnitude of those topics and the pettiness of I-was-right-on-the-internet only calls attention to the latter.