Unity has temporarily closed its offices in San Francisco and Austin, Texas and canceled a town hall meeting after receiving death threats. The company made the call as a precaution against possible retribution after it announced a contentious change to its business model this week.
  • stevestevesteve@lemmy.worldEnglish
    839·
    1 year ago

    I’m not one of the maniacs making threats of any kind, but honestly it really seems like death threats are the only thing that gets any attention anymore, so I can understand why it’s done…

    Is “eat the rich” not a death threat in its own right?

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
      592·
      1 year ago

      It is, and here’s the thing: All of society, laws, and legal recourses ultimately just boil down to “might makes right, but with extra steps.” We all love to act like this isn’t the case in a civilized society, but it is. That might usually rests with the police, the military, some governmental organization, or some megacorporation. Violence both literal and metaphorical is inflicted on the common person continually by those at the top. Who are the police after all? Just guys with guns. Who are judges and politicians? Just guys with access to the police. Who are megacorporations? Just guys with access to judges and politicians, and so on down the line. So when someone says they have the law on their side, and you don’t, what they’re really implying is that they can call the guys with guns, who if you don’t do what they say (no matter how ridiculous) can literally kill you. And we treat this as normal and proper and reasonable, because we’re stupid.

      These motherfuckers want to act like their violence or threat of violence is justified, and that’s a one way street.

      Well, it ain’t. Nobody’s invulnerable.

      Maybe it’s “just” video games. (Or “just” a cell phone app, or “just” a predatory subscription, or “just” an apartment with exorbitant rent, or whatever.) But big corporations are fucking with people’s livelihoods, here. There’s a reason we colloquially call such a thing “a living.” These are assholes taking food off of someone’s table, just for greed, just because they can, because they think they’ve above reproach. Because the whole teetering facade is lopsided. It doesn’t matter who the fuck they are at that point.

      • Korkki@lemmy.worldEnglish
        232·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, this is basically why I’m not buying these arguments against a struggle of any kind, just because methods of it are illegal.

        Illegality =/= your cause or methods are wrong

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        102·
        1 year ago

        Call me whatever you want but Im happy the people who make these bad decisions from their insulated lots in life have to face at least some kind of consequences now, because the law is explicitly set up so that they typically never have to. Sucks that it comes to this but its behavior analysis 101, if you dont introduce consequences for undesirable behaviors, you’d be an idiot to expect change.

        I don’t love that it’s probably caught up a lot of people who have nothing or little to do with it though, but the guys at the top need consequences or nothing will change, and beggars cant be choosers.

    • zaph@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Is “eat the rich” not a death threat in its own right?

      Maybe it is but I always took it as “let’s take their money and redistribute the wealth.”

      • MarigoldPuppyFlavors@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        1 year ago

        There is no meaningful difference between a threat and a warning. I’ve never understood why we see that retort so often when someone asks “is that a threat?!”. It’s the same damn thing.

        • sadreality@kbin.social
          3·
          1 year ago

          Threat in criminal sense requires that subject of the threat is identifiable…

          Who is the rich in that “threat” above?