Journalist Rachel Scott received death threats following her interview with former President Donald Trump, according to NABJ journalist.
  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    682·
    4 months ago

    I woke up to a response from someone who asked me why I had to make “everything” about racism.

    This is why.

    • Davin@lemmy.world
      9·
      4 months ago

      Pointing out racism is not you making everything about racism, it’s there being a lot of racist shit.

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    30·
    4 months ago

    Imagine if Trump said that this is not acceptable… But guess who keeps his mouth shut instead.

  • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
    211·
    4 months ago

    Lmao of course she did, what else can you expect talking to the dopey leader of a cult of FUCKING WEIRDOS.

  • Freefall@lemmy.world
    11·
    4 months ago

    Yeah, emotional violent savages are gonna act that way. They are not intelligent enough to argue and are uncivilized animals. Screw maga, they are weird outcasts and, anger getting wrecked in the election, can go hide in their bunkers where polite society doesn’t have to look at them anymore…

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    10·
    4 months ago

    They’re in favor of a free press, except if that press isn’t in support of their political agenda. Then all of a sudden that free press isn’t supposed to be so free.

    If the freedom you want has a required political position, it’s not freedom that you want.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      6·
      4 months ago

      Just like how they only use “free speech” to defend the indefensible things they say. Because they can’t actually justify the things they say, so they fall back to “well you technically can’t stop me from saying it.” The “free speech” defense is just about the lowest bar you could find, and if you’re using it you should seriously examine why you’re saying the things you are. Because if you’ve fallen into the “free speech” defense, it means you have no other defense.

        • Sconrad122@lemmy.world
          4·
          4 months ago

          It’s definitely not that. They are just pointing out that the right to free speech prevents the government from impeding someone’s ability to say something, it doesn’t (despite implications made by a lot of people who cry out that their right to free speech is being impeded) force others to listen to or agree with that thing being said. If anything, the people that abuse the name of free speech by implying that it means people need to agree with them, or need to amplify their message, are attacking free speech by mudding the water around what it means and making it harder for good faith entities to invoke that right

  • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
    3·
    4 months ago

    Remember folks, the so-called moderate Republicans coming out of the woodwork have fully enabled the whackjobs making death threats and all the other bullshit coming out of the Gaslight Obstruct Project party over the past few years. They allowed this to happen, they invited this to happen, and the US will take years if not decades to recover.

    We are entering the “I never supported him anyway” phase. Don’t let them.

  • fubarx@lemmy.ml
    226·
    4 months ago

    At some point in the future, there will be LLMs that will scan all voice, video, or text calls and do sentiment analysis. If they flag a call as hostile, they could send a signal to all intermediate network conduits that this person is a threat and will essentially ‘unmask’ their origin. Authorities can then take appropriate action.

    If we’re lucky, laws will be passed to enable it just for cases of assholes threatening someone they don’t like. And after a few public lawsuits, the whole doxxing/swatting/death-threat thing will cease to exist.

    More likely, it’ll be used by governments to stifle dissent. But you gotta dream 😔