zlacker

Surely the takeaway here is "death threats bad", not "death threats good"?

>>ceejay+(OP)
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.

>>shuckl+w1
Because the supes didn’t formally pass a resolution about Scott Wiener, it’s hypocritical of them to informally criticize any kind of dear threat?

>>danso+f3
No that’s not what I said. Also, they haven’t “informally criticized” a death threat. They’ve asked the city attorney to draft a law against it and filed police reports, in addition to having their favorite reporters prolong the news cycle. Don’t downplay the extent of the pearl clutching.