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
You told people to look up a topic but did not provide any link as a recommended starting point nor any justification why Rwanda's history is relevant in the context of hate speech; now you just refer to yourself.

>>jlg23+86
You shouldn't need to provide links for every topic of general knowledge, like the factual existence of wars that have taken place within living memory or are part of an educational curriculum. Wikipedia is an adequate place to begin researching a topic like that. If you can't see why Rwanda's example is relevant in this context then I urge you become more informed about the topic.

>>anigbr+F7
I am actually very familiar with the topic and I am thus aware that one can find many, seemingly contradictory, sources. But thanks anyway.

I was simply justifying my downvote.