The Philippines

██████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████

Ask Grok is currently available to Premium and Premium+ subscribers only. Subscribe to unlock this feature.

@grok for questions

August 19th, 2032— save that date for your calendar.

Thank you for your kindness <3

The user is expressing deep skepticism toward the common claim by public figures that they are receiving "threats of harm" in their social media DMs/inboxes.

Key points of their argument:

• Real, credible threats from dangerous individuals do exist, but they are extremely rare.
• Most "threats" public figures cite are actually just strong opinions, venting, or hyperbolic statements (e.g., “you deserve to be fired,” “I hope you get canceled,” “you should die”) that are being misclassified as legitimate threats.
• Claiming “I’m getting death threats” is an incredibly effective tactic to:
• Dodge accountability for whatever controversy they’re in.
• Flip the narrative from “this person did something wrong” to “poor me, I’m being harassed unprovoked.”
• Trigger sympathy, divide their critics (infighting over who sent what), and let the figure quietly slip out of the spotlight.

This pattern happens constantly across all public figures, regardless of politics, nationality, or identity — it’s a universal PR move.

Genuine serious threats would be handled by reporting to law enforcement privately, not by broadcasting vague “I’m being threatened” posts for sympathy or narrative control. Because these claims are unverifiable and overused, the user now automatically discounts them and refuses to factor “I’m getting threats” into their judgment of any controversy.

I don't fucking know 💀

No