@mbs_ctt @jack Word
← Search the archive · Browse this month
John McAfee · archived post
Other archived McAfee posts in this conversation
Up to 100 posts; this is not necessarily the complete thread or the other participants’ replies.
To @jack: If threats of violence are deemed "Glorification", then we are in serious trouble. Would it not be better for everyone to know that the man in charge of our armed forces is threatening action, than to keep us all in the dark?
@williamlegate @jack Not as I see it. A warning that a tweet "glorifies" violence is a tweet I don't want to look at. A warning saying "this man my send his forces to kill you" is a tweet I damn sure want to read.
@MollyJongFast @williamlegate @jack I'm glad you are sure of that and you can act according to your belief. I prefer to take no risks when a powerful person with nearly unlimited force threatens me. Perhaps I'm a fool.
@RosaTron @jack The former would not scare me. The latter would. I damn sure would want to hear the latter if that was what was threatened.
@Stevie_oneduhh @jack Does the source matter? I just want to know whether someone is going to shoot at me. I don't give a flying fuck why.
@wmsglobetrotter @jack It's a warning that the tweet glorifies violence. I have no interest in reading such a tweet. Few would. But the truth is, if you want to put a warning, it should be: "The most powerful man in the world is threatening to kill you" I damn sure would want to read that tweet.