Well, ignoring him entirely is easy, but dangerous. But it's also easy to charge genocide with an attitude of "no I don't need any proof or even an argument because we all know it". But that's also dangerous. Probably even more dangerous, because it marks you as ready to engage in extreme actions.

What's hard(er) is taking him in as good of faith as possible and then still repudiating his point of view. (But I did listen to some of what he said and a lot of it is just really bad, so I don't think this is very hard either, except inasmuch as it's hard to stomach wading through it to come up with effective counters.)

I'm sympathetic to the need to vent once in a while. I guess Medium isn't the worst place for it, because it's mostly a favorable audience and the fraction that isn't mostly isn't persuadable. But I think it can foster a dangerously counterproductive culture of how to react.

(I'm not sure what you count as trying to persuade people when you say "We try over and over to persuade people. It's all over this site." My view is necessarily corrupted by Medium's content-selection algorithm, but I see very little actual persuasion. There's a lot of venting--most less problematic, to my eye, than this; there's some cheerleading, structured like persuasion but crafted to appeal to an already completely sold audience while getting in some wicked burns against opponents; and only a smattering of persuasion which requires understanding other points of view and/or going into non-obvious but relevant details. But maybe that's enough--it only takes one good argument to establish something.)