• PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year 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@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year 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@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

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

      • 520@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year 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.