[nullc]

The tweet suggests the views targeted to are not ones related to taxation, government spending, or regulation-- standard fiscally conservative stuff. In its own act of conspicuous omission the tweet implies the censored views are obviously abhorrent ones. A later reply says the quiet part out loud, referring to the views of whiny conservatives as "racist views, misogynistic views, or xenophobic views".

Your comment states-- "I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them" to "get a doctor for my impoverished mother in law".

I think it's unclear to me precisely what you're saying here, but I can see how it can be read as saying you seek to silence fiscal conservatives who oppose state funded healthcare or other government support.

If your comment had not included an apparent example of a question of public policy that had little to do with racism, misogyny, xenophobia, or similar I suspect the person you're responding to wouldn't have seen any conflict.

[giraffe_lady]

Yeah, I do see it now, thanks.

I still think it depends on certain assumptions about my positions and why I hold them. Like, I oppose market-based healthcare access because it causes injustice, death, and suffering on a large scale. To me that is very consistent with opposing eg racism because it causes injustice, suffering and death.

I did, honestly, momentarily forget that this state of affairs is the status quo and so probably has wider explicit support than the others. It's all part of the same hell to me though.