[INCOMING ALLAT POSTING]
I've lately become extremely skeptical of the "Social Media DM Threat of Harm" claim that nearly EVERY public figure uses.
My reasoning isnt that there aren't a VERY small amount of crazed individuals doing it, but that the content of those messages is misinterpreted, and the amount exagerated.
Why? because its a great tool of avoiding acountability, and self-victimizing, suddenly whatever the criticism this figure faced, becomes sidelined.
It goes from "X person did Y bad thing, how evil!" to "Oh no, X's is receiving hatred for their actions in an unprompted manner", which then leads to dividing the once united narrative, leading to infighting amongst the enraged crowd, with the figure then fading into the background
This isnt about the amy situation specifically, its about all the public figures, globally, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, i keep seeing this pattern, and it annoys me.
A threat is a real promise of danger, not some idiot saying "you should be X-ed", "i hope Y happens to you", "this person deserves W happening to them", those are sentiments, takes, opinions, not Threats. but they are used as padding on the "im being threatened claim".
I now do not believe and do not take these claims into account when judging any nothing burger drama regardless of side, its too vague, too unverifiable.
If you truly were receiving such threats you wouldnt be bitching about it on social media, you wouldnt be using it to gather simpathy or to restructure narratives or to do image control, you would be reporting it to the authorities.







