So I presume if someone posted a comment saying “I’d love to roll him over with a steamroller” under a post about a transgender person, you would not consider that a violent threat because they are not going to actually get a steamroller?
Context is everything. You are deliberately conflating a ridiculous joke with a veiled threat. You know the difference, so why are you feigning ignorance?
Because the picture of the “gayroller 2000” is very obvious satire from the known-satire comic The Oatmeal, originally posted to satirise conservatives’ baseless fears of “the gay agenda”. Seeing a pattern?
On the other hand, there a pattern of hostility, hatred, and violence from conservatives towards LGBT people. This pattern is both historical and contemporary, and currently it is absurdly common for LGBT people to be called “groomers” and be accused of being dangerous to children.
Gay people obviously do not want to run over straight people with a steamroller. On the other hand, the people posting wood chipper memes… Some of them would, and have, followed through.
I’ve never seen the image before, but the “threat of violence” was obviously a joke comment like the rallying call to “elect Biden so we can force feminize the cissy men.” In case you didn’t know, that’s also a joke. Its very different from threats to take a vehicle (whether a truck or a steamroller) to a pride event and use it on people, for example.
If you can’t understand context or jokes, maybe don’t make inflammatory remarks about an entire group of people based on one person’s comment with confidence without at least asking first. Nothing wrong with taking things too literally, but weaponizing your lack of understanding isn’t the answer. Of course a lot of people do make veiled threats (in minecraft) when they actually are encouraging violence, so we should be careful about language and surely there’s cases in the middle where it could go either way, in which case calling out the language without insinuating it was intentional or representative of a larger group could be appropriate unless there’s a clear pattern…
So I presume if someone posted a comment saying “I’d love to roll him over with a steamroller” under a post about a transgender person, you would not consider that a violent threat because they are not going to actually get a steamroller?
Context is everything. You are deliberately conflating a ridiculous joke with a veiled threat. You know the difference, so why are you feigning ignorance?
I genuinely don’t understand why it’s supposedly a joke in one case and a threat in the other. Can you explain that?
Because the picture of the “gayroller 2000” is very obvious satire from the known-satire comic The Oatmeal, originally posted to satirise conservatives’ baseless fears of “the gay agenda”. Seeing a pattern?
On the other hand, there a pattern of hostility, hatred, and violence from conservatives towards LGBT people. This pattern is both historical and contemporary, and currently it is absurdly common for LGBT people to be called “groomers” and be accused of being dangerous to children.
Gay people obviously do not want to run over straight people with a steamroller. On the other hand, the people posting wood chipper memes… Some of them would, and have, followed through.
Alright, I didn’t know this was a parody of an existing image. You could’ve said that the first time. But there was still the accompanying sentence…
Even without knowledge of the source of the image, there is no reasonable way a normal person interprets that message as a genuine threat of violence.
I’ve never seen the image before, but the “threat of violence” was obviously a joke comment like the rallying call to “elect Biden so we can force feminize the cissy men.” In case you didn’t know, that’s also a joke. Its very different from threats to take a vehicle (whether a truck or a steamroller) to a pride event and use it on people, for example.
If you can’t understand context or jokes, maybe don’t make inflammatory remarks about an entire group of people based on one person’s comment with confidence without at least asking first. Nothing wrong with taking things too literally, but weaponizing your lack of understanding isn’t the answer. Of course a lot of people do make veiled threats (in minecraft) when they actually are encouraging violence, so we should be careful about language and surely there’s cases in the middle where it could go either way, in which case calling out the language without insinuating it was intentional or representative of a larger group could be appropriate unless there’s a clear pattern…