I see this attitude a lot in discussions about online harassment. Somehow we're supposed to believe that offensive behavior is a faceless, unaccountable force of nature, but the reactions of its targets are a matter of personal responsibility and character. I don't see how that adds up.

Does that justify toxic behavior?

Toxic behavior happens on every level of society and to every occupation. Being a politician doesn’t automatically make toxic behavior towards you—it was always okay towards you! That’s how the world works.

However, when you become a public figure and especially a political one people may feel more entitled to lash out against you, as you literally hold power over their lives, even if they themselves may disagree with you (as in, voted for someone else or the like.)

Is that a yes or a no?

Absolutely not, but raising yourself above the line of visibility for public office (or in fact, any kind of fame) more or less automatically comes with its share of negatives.

That doesn't justify the toxic behavior at all, it is just a statement about reality. And the rude tweets are the lowest form of that, at the higher levels it turns into physical assault and sometimes even murder attempts and the occasional actual murder.

Doesn't mean Twitter needs to host it. HN has its own guidelines. I can't come here insulting you. So while it's perfectly fine to say someone can say something, Twitter has every right to decide that it won't host it. Suggesting otherwise is, in many ways, censorship. And I wouldn't want an HN that wasn't allowed to moderate its discussion.

I'm not suggesting that Twitter needs to host it, on the contrary, I think they're a bit late in their response.

And that makes it ok? What about threats? Are they also ok?

I don't think he is justifying it, it's just that you need to be able to deal with insults in a healthy way. Stoicism comes to mind.

But not being able to deal with it isn't what we're discussing.

He said:

> If someone cant handle a verbal insult over the internet, I don't think they are fit for office

Then many people immediately jumped on him and made the assumption that he is justifying insults or "toxic behavior". I do not see how this would be the case. Care to explain?

It is not a justification of insults or toxic behavior. He is merely pointing out the fact that if you cannot deal with insults, then this and that. Toxic behavior is, well, toxic, but you have to be able to handle them in a manner that is, say, not self-destructive, while at the same time you being against said toxic behavior.

I agree with him. If you cannot deal with insults thrown at you on the Internet or in real life and it leads to, say, psychological turmoil or whatever, then you should probably do something to alleviate this negative effect insults have on you. This does not justify insults or toxic behaviors. Do you disagree?