Also: even if we completely left out the actual contents of this tweet.
Then we are still left with an adult (who happens to be a CEO) who thought that it would be a rational thing to tweet that and couldn't predict the outcome of it.
I would have expected that to be almost worse to people here. And no, alcohol is not an excuse for that. Drinking enough not to be able to rationally think about whether that is a good idea anymore is a confirmation of it.
It isn’t illegal to say what he said but it’s not the right tone for his position. The slow drop into political violence begins with speech normalizing calling for death and murder.
I just hope everyone outraged analyzes their own speech. I hold a lot of opinions outside the bounds of cocktail conversation, but I was having cocktails with my (blue city, professional) friends and they made a joke about someone needing to assassinate a certain right wing presidential candidate and everyone laughed really hard. The way she said it was funny and I laughed along but it’s easy to have outrage when you want it.
> The slow drop into political violence begins with speech normalizing calling for death and murder.
I have seen this a lot lately in online discussions of homelessness and people accused of crime. It's very unsettling.
That is the context of why Mr Tan wrote that -- there's a popular narrative that specific individuals are complicit in crime and homelessness in San Francisco. This leads to lots of ad hominem and in my view rises to the level of conspiracy theory in many -- it's not like every problem is the fault of a single office holder or even a "cabal" of them. Voting against someone or supporting different candidates is one thing. Calling them solely responsible for all that you consider evil, escalating to the level of death threats, is quite another.
And that's just politicians. It's also routine to see people call for violence on homeless people or people accused of crime.
On the other hand, where does the path we're on lead?
Let's not forget, there is a multi-dimensional spectrum in between, nobody is consistent across the spectrum, it is possible and often beneficial to speculate non-seriously, plenty of ~good people support intentional killing by our military if it has a well crafted (by literal professional thought shapers), just-so story to accompany it, and so forth and so on.
Optimal gameplay is difficult. Even aspiring to it is difficult.
I don't think it is very controversial and haven't seen anyone actively saying it is a good thing. I think all division and debate is around if and how much anyone should care.
I see a lot of declarations that it is bad, inexcusable, disgusting, ect. What I dont see is what people think the implications or consequences of that determination are. When someone says that, what do they want to happen?
Do they just want other people to acknowledge it was bad, and then everyone goes on with their life? Do the police make them wear a scarlet letter or send them out into the wilderness. Does it mean that people should unfollow them on twitter?
