zlacker

Came here to voice my frustration about the muddying of the waters and the quality of this article. Took me a few minutes of cynical reading to understand that he did not send the letters, someone else did.

>>elpaka+(OP)
If your very public words can be mailed to someone and mistaken as a fairly death threat to them do you A) Rethink your life or B) Retreat to how this is not technically a death threat and you did not technically send it to them?

>>hobs+q1
Por que no los dos?

>>elpaka+(OP)
And Donald Trump didn't storm the capitol, someone else did.

He still incited it.

>>hobs+q1
In America, it is a legal and popular pass-time to wish politicians would die.

>>elpaka+(OP)
Yeah, it sure wasn't obvious from the very first thing on the page where it says the letter started with "Garry Tan was right", I'm surprised you were able to figure it out after just a few minutes.

>>elpaka+(OP)
>Took me a few minutes of cynical reading to understand that he did not send the letters

It didn't take me that. I knew it within moments of reading the article and it seems the vast majority of readers didn't have this problem.

>>lupusr+93
You've chosen option 2, good for you!

>>hobs+r81
If I say that your argument is counter to the principles of a free society, does that count as a death threat because some unhinged militia type might agree with me then shoot you down in the street?

>>lupusr+Ga2
There's no argument, just a moral judgement, that's the great part. So, in that case, no!

>>rozap+e2
Yea, I'm not saying he didn't incite it. I'm saying the article didn't try very hard to make it clear he didn't write the letters.