zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
The number of people trying to defend what is, at best, extremely childish behavior is fascinating to me. Would you really go up to your city counselor in real life and tell them you wish death on them and their family, and pretend it's OK because it's an obscure reference to 90s rap (mind you the rap song WAS an actual death threat)? Do you think you'd be met with laughter? Do you actually consider that socially acceptable behavior?

If you dislike their politics, so be it - donate to campaigns or personally run against them. Write a letter explaining how you'd like them to vote.. But the amount of absolute crass behavior people allow "because it's the internet" is mind boggling.

>>tw04+ka
I’ve received death threats from representatives of local non profits for advocating to build more houses in San Francisco. It’s not that surprising when people observe that the outrage over this incident is arguably insincere, even if the original tweet was inappropriate.

>>shuckl+Sd
Surely the takeaway here is "death threats bad", not "death threats good"?

>>ceejay+ke
Those aren’t the only options. “Death threats bad, but this one overblown for political reasons” is perfectly within the realm of reasonable opinion. Across the bay, an actual supervisor resigned last week due to real and persistent death threats. Yet somehow that is not getting nearly the attention that a retracted tweet is. Similarly, Scott Wiener the local state senator has been harassed by online trolls for years and has needed a security detail posted at his house. Yet the same politicians crying foul over a tweet could not bring themselves to pass a resolution condemning death threats against him by actual psychos because Wiener is not in their political faction.