• PhobosAnomaly
    link
    fedilink
    219 months ago

    I agree with the “who?”, but then I’m not big in to TV and film.

    The “who cares?” though is particularly problematic - it shows a rise in the normalisation of open threats of violence. Today, it’s a political figure who by the definition of the US’s party system is going to be a polarising figure - but tomorrow it can be any person that isn’t flavour of the week, justified or not.

    It’s a bad downward trend.

    • DreamerofDays
      link
      fedilink
      49 months ago

      I was reading the “who cares” as “who cares what he has to say?” (being a furtherance of wondering why this person has a platform or is getting a headline) I read it that way rather than “who cares that someone is threatening to kill the President.” (Which I think how you took it)

      • PhobosAnomaly
        link
        fedilink
        39 months ago

        You are absolutely correct, I didn’t entertain the thought of the other view, thanks for providing a new angle on it!

      • 520
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Racist pieces of shit can still throw firebombs. When they are making death threats, the response needs to be a bit more severe than ‘ignore and shun’ .

          • 520
            link
            fedilink
            39 months ago

            We’re at the point of death threats and calling for violence. That’s literal terrorism. Letting them carry out said violence will give them far more of a voice than dealing with these people.

            Dealing with death threats does not give these people any sympathy votes.