Yeah, it's orders of magnitude beyond people on social media calling dissent hate speech. But Medium is not the world nor is it a microcosm equivalent of the world.

Plus, unless I missed it, that distinction wasn't made.

If we're going to say hate speech doesn't exist, that includes all speech: including Hitler's speeches blaming Jews for the woes of Germany and calling for the final solution, racist speech glorifying lynching of black people, calling women who have abortions murderers, Muslim extremists calling for the beheading of infidels, and all "bothering" language that dehumanizes a marginalized group.

Specifically, this is where I have a problem with easy agreement. Otherwise, I agree completely that the term is bandied about too easily and erroneously as a means of silencing people who disagree with you on social media.

But when you someone who holds some level of institutional influence and power and that's what you choose to do with it, literally inciting genocide, then I think hate speech is a warranted term. It's clearly not the same as regular speech, or even dissenting speech. Because you hold power, criminal law is ineffective and would not be a strong enough response regardless.

Think about Trump's rhetoric and Jan 6th. The deaths, the injuries, that noose, and the hit list. There were conspirators in the House that day. They'e still there. The put attempted murder in motion (which failed) without remorse and to date without censure. Choosing to whip up certain crowds and groups is hate speech.

The people who stormed the capital might have been the weapon, but we all know who pulled the trigger same as we know about Hitler.