who said to accept it? Above poster said that death threats are easy to get these days for virtually anything and can hardly be used as an excuse.

B) whinging about inevitable death threats to deflect attention from your gaffes isn't really great, either. The public complaint, if anything, further normalizes the death threats with people inclined to make them. Secondarily, it generates sympathy and distraction, which is probably the effect one wanted when one chose to whinge.

If one wants to object to death threats in a way that improves our culture and makes them less likely, it's probably best done out of band from the actual coverage of one's failing. Do it retrospectively, and in contemplative channels, not ones that are already polemic and filled with attention to the failing that caused the original outrage.

Violent extremists are often operate under the mistaken belief that they represent the "silent majority", and that most people secretly agree with what they do.

This is one reason that when a political party that tacitly or explicitly approves of extremist violence gets in to power more terrorist acts are committed. It's also why, for example, racists terrorists believe the murders they commit will spark a "race war". They believe that most people are secretly racist, and all it'll take for such a war to start is for their murders to encourage people's secret hatred to come to the surface.

To counteract this, it's important for the real majority to not be silent, and instead condemn violence, hatred, and terrorism (which includes death threats) in the strongest possible terms. When terrorists see evidence that the majority actually opposes them it'll require a lot more cognitive dissonance on their part to continue to believe that they represent the majority.

This is not a panacea, and I don't imagine for a moment that it will end all violence, especially as some people will never believe the evidence of their lying eyes, but many people speaking out in public against violence is one of the most effective tools we have for combating violent extremism.

Because if you're pissed off about Cyberpunk 2077, and think death threats are OK... seeing an article with more news about '2077 being late, and an aside of them saying "these death threats are upsetting us" A) reinforces your belief death threats for situations like this are normal, and B) provides you with some validation/happies.

I'd wager that the kind of people who issue death threats over video game delays has a pretty big overlap with 4chan. 4chan peeps know their behavior is not normative, and having a bunch of outcry has never stopped their pursuit of the luls... and the kind of article mentioning the threats you're talking about is pretty much winning from their standpoint.

At this point on the internet, if the topic touches more than 100,000 people and its controversial. You can probably find a few truly heinous comments.

And giving them attention, is kind of what they are after.

Its just very vocal fringe minority.

It's an expression of frustration, and we all know that. Unfortunately in today's world, feeling threatened is socially valuable so they're simply playing on that. It says more to me about the disingenuity and/or weakness of the "victim" than anything else.

We need to laugh at people more.