3 ms·
Even if they were poor or badly researched, death threats are just way out of scope. Like: NEVER, EVER, IN ANY INTERACTION ARE THEY OKAY, NO POINT TO ARGUE. The
by Argorak 12y ago
Even if they were poor or badly researched, death threats are just way out of scope. Like: NEVER, EVER, IN ANY INTERACTION ARE THEY OKAY, NO POINT TO ARGUE. They are also no joke.
(sorry for using all caps for once)
(I take explanations for downvotes)
- Houshalter 12y agoSaying that death threats are bad is not something anyone disagrees with, as far as I know. It's just an applause light (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/) at best.
- Argorak 12y agoThis very page has people arguing that death threats are par for the course on the internet and should be ignored as well as others trying to contextualize them. There is a reason why I wrote this sentence on this very page.
- Houshalter 12y agoYou said that making death threats was bad, which everyone agrees on. Some people disagree that they are as significant as made out to be. Almost all controversial figures get death threats. Obama gets 30 a day, about 40,000 in total. Yet assassinations and mass shootings are extremely rare.
- Argorak 12y agoNo. I said that they are never okay and no joke, which people disagree with (including you, just now, you argue that they are ignorable). Don't rephrase or interpret. Yes, Obama gets 30 per day. What a sad world we live in, in which people are okay with that. Also, Obama can pay for bodyguards. The goal of a death threat is not necessarily the killing, but insecurity and psychological effect.