| > That's a wildly exaggerated interpretation of rainytuesday's post. I interpreted it as calling out the one-sided purity test applied to which media one may engage with. You didn’t need to interpret. They said[0] what they meant pretty clearly. > Non-engagement with the thesis was the point And I don’t agree given actual political alignment that “news without a liberal filter” is mild. It’s a dog whistle for increasingly active hate. The news without such a “liberal filter” is openly hostile to my existence, and far moreso towards other people I care about. And to that point, > If we ignore what anyone we dislike has to say, even when we think what they're saying is true, then dialogue is impossible. I don’t want dialogue with anyone who wants me to cease to exist, nor anyone who wants to keep people I care about from existing. That’s not intellectual curiosity and it’s not the bedrock of a functioning society. It’s the exact principle of demanding people entertain harmful ideas even when recognized. You can engage whatever you want, but I’m not obligated to spend a second thought on people who want me dead. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35867929 |
> They believe hate speech is violence. Not that it merely is bad, but that it actually equates to violence. In fact, certain forms of hate speech are not just violence, but genocide.
And then I get down the thread a bit and find the exact behavior described in uvnq’s post.
If the simple tagline “news without a liberal filter” can be interpreted as an indirect deadly threat against an individual’s life and very existence, then the moral framework has already been established to violently respond in “self-defense”.