• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Would You React?

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
To say how one should die vastly
differs from saying "I will kill you".
Only the latter is a death threat.
How do you know for certain someone wishing a 2-year-old girl dead isn't considering doing or willing to do the deed himself?

If you "know" the former isn't a threat, your confidence is nothing short of dangerous.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Last evening, my daughter began screenshotting me messages from both one her Facebook posts that contained a photo of her and my granddaughter and on Facebook messenger from some random racist that contained some very hateful comments about her and my granddaughter. I won't repeat them here, but in summary, they attacked my daughter for having a child with a man of a different race and contained some choice opinions about how my granddaughter should die.

I've already taken steps with advising her on contacting local law enforcement and to disengage and block him, and also advised her to update her privacy and security settings to private. I also dropped the hateful fellow a message letting him know, in so many words, that she has a protective father who is monitoring the exchange.

How would you have reacted in such a situation?
I'm sorry this is happening. Best wishes for everyone to get a positive outcome.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It makes more sense to learn to cope with internet
trolls. It's a lot of effort to document incidents, call
the cops, & build a case, when it'll come to naught.
It's the wrong focus.
The best approach is to manage one's own feelings,
thinking, & conduct. Of course, if ever a threat looks
potentially something that could be acted upon,
then it's worth contacting authorities.

BTW, in social media (even RF) I've been threatened,
& told to die in most grisly fashion. My reaction was
meh....ie, see them for what they are....a foul person
raging from the safety of internet anonymity.
But I still observe some caution. I use my real identity
only on a few sites where everyone else does too, &
we're all civil with each other.

Your opinion is noted.

Whether reporting an incident to the police constitutes an undue burden or hassle would fall to each individual to decide for themselves.

As to documentation, seems holding on to a couple of screen shots presented no problem for @SalixIncendium. Again, each will have to make their own decision as to whether this step constitutes a burden.

You give the caveat, "Of course, if ever a threat looks potentially something that could be acted upon, then it's worth contacting authorities.", which of course, if you have documented the behavior up to that point will provide the authorities more to work with and potentially allow them to intervene more quickly, should the need arise. It is not always clear cut when a threat could lead to something more that requires action. Each will have to decide what actions they feel most necessary to give them sufficient peace of mind that they have done all that they can do to adequately address the problem.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
How do you know for certain someone wishing a 2-year-old girl dead isn't considering doing or willing to do the deed himself?
It's certainly possible that someone saying
such a thing intends to make it happen.
It's a theoretical possibility.
But is it likely enuf to treat as a real threat?
Nah.
If you "know" the former isn't a threat, your confidence is nothing short of dangerous.
If you "know" the former is a threat, you're
paranoid. When government has the power
to act upon this, it too poses a danger because
over-reacting authorities assault & even kill
innocent people due to escalation.
Politeness enforced by government's gun only
hides the symptoms.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
One is an invective.
The other is intent to act.
Do you see no difference?

I think the police might look at the degree or the credibility of the threat. It might be construed as harassment, which is still bad, but perhaps not considered as bad as an outright threat. Still, it might be viewed as threatening, as in "menacing" in some way, even if not a direct threat.

It's just like with phoned-in bomb threats. They'll treat it like it could be real, do a full evacuation and search with bomb-sniffing dogs. Most of the time, they're hoaxes. But even if there's a 1 in a 100 chance it could be credible, it's worth taking precautions.

So, it could be nothing, but you just never know.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think the police might look at the degree or the credibility of the threat.
That was my point, ie, to differentiate
between insult & threat. The left appears
to want to conflate them for the purpose
of enforcing civility using threat of force.
It might be construed as harassment, which is still bad, but perhaps not considered as bad as an outright threat. Still, it might be viewed as threatening, as in "menacing" in some way, even if not a direct threat.
"might be viewed as" points to the potential
for paranoia to rule, & authorities to over-react.

It's just like with phoned-in bomb threats. They'll treat it like it could be real, do a full evacuation and search with bomb-sniffing dogs. Most of the time, they're hoaxes. But even if there's a 1 in a 100 chance it could be credible, it's worth taking precautions.

So, it could be nothing, but you just never know.
Anything could be more than nothing.
Insulting one's religion, age, country, political
party, ethnicity, handicap status, intelligence,
education, etc, etc.
To treat every insult as a credible threat of
physical violence based upon the invented
"1 in a 100 chance" is absurd.

Life doesn't present us with certainty. But
this is no reason to always assume the worst.
Sound judgment & reason are best.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Whether reporting an incident to the police constitutes an undue burden or hassle would fall to each individual to decide for themselves.
Of course.
But the right to report it isn't the issue.
It's about the efficacy of reporting.
As to documentation, seems holding on to a couple of screen shots presented no problem for @SalixIncendium. Again, each will have to make their own decision as to whether this step constitutes a burden.
A single insult would be a couple screen shots.
But would this be a singular event for them?
Nah.
Such a reaction smacks of paranoia. Tis better
to learn how to react to insults, & to recognize
a real threat if one ever arises.
You give the caveat, "Of course, if ever a threat looks potentially something that could be acted upon, then it's worth contacting authorities.", which of course, if you have documented the behavior up to that point will provide the authorities more to work with and potentially allow them to intervene more quickly, should the need arise. It is not always clear cut when a threat could lead to something more that requires action. Each will have to decide what actions they feel most necessary to give them sufficient peace of mind that they have done all that they can do to adequately address the problem.
To live with such heightened fearfulness is
a choice. I advise making a better choice.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
It's certainly possible that someone saying
such a thing intends to make it happen.
It's a theoretical possibility.
But is it likely enuf to treat as a real threat?
Nah.

If you "know" the former is a threat, you're
paranoid. When government has the power
to act upon this, it too poses a danger because
over-reacting authorities assault & even kill
innocent people due to escalation.
Politeness enforced by government's gun only
hides the symptoms.
I'm not going to debate you on this. It's a waste of my time.

I don't find it remotely credible that if someone hypothetically wished your 2-year-old grandchild dead and you did not know who the person was or what they were capable of that you would just dismiss it.

Sorry, but I can't see myself taking your perspective and finding out that I was wrong about whether or not it was a viable threat.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm not going to debate you on this. It's a waste of my time.
You asked a question in the OP.
I answered.
You & others chose to pursue the topic further.
If a waste of time, then I advise not pursuing it.
But if you do, I'll answer.
I don't find it remotely credible that if someone hypothetically wished your 2-year-old grandchild dead and you did not know who the person was or what they were capable of that you would just dismiss it.
I would not call the cops,
for the reasons given.
I would respond with words
on the internet to the offender.
Sorry, but I can't see myself taking your perspective and finding out that I was wrong about whether or not it was a viable threat.
We differ on judgement that it was
a threat, & also that it was credible.
It's the internet.

Question....
How do you think I should've reacted
when a member on RF posted wanting
me dead by grisly means?
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
It wasn't loaded.
I asked if I should infer that.
I didn't assume the inference.

That was my intention, even
if it appears otherwise to you.
To use your words, pish posh.

You could have just as easily inferred "and served with oatmeal raisin cookies" because there was as much an implication of that as "and treat them both equally."
 
Top