4 ms·

I can think this is a bad move by Paypal and also think OP's implicit "and thus people working at Paypal should now be harmed for this" as being an insane escal

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  I'm trying to find where OP implied "and thus people working at Paypal should now be harmed for this" and I'm not finding it. Are you making crap up, or did I miss something? I didn't get that at all
  • noirbot 4y ago
    > inhibits the only practical means we have for peaceful social change. > there will be backlash against things like this, and it's not going to be pretty. Both of those are certainly, to me, a "polite" implication that they see this action as being part of a path towards something other than "peaceful social change" that "will not be pretty" during the "backlash to things like this". What sort of un-peaceful social change in backlash to this that you think will involve Paypal that won't be some sort of danger to the employees there? The direct implication is that this is removing a non-violent option for OP to cause change, and that their thus-violent backlash to this will not be pretty. Sure, it's not naming specific people at Paypal who should be harmed, but this reads very much like the sort of vague pseudo-threats that are common these days that skirt the line of being an actual "threat" that is legally problematic, but still conveys intent to cause concern to those the poster disagrees with. It's not much less blunt than "people who did this are going to be first against the wall in the revolution"