
Americans are getting more nervous about what they say in public - helsinkiandrew
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/28/americans-are-getting-more-nervous-about-what-they-say-in-public
======
qzx_pierri
This is even more annoying if you're a person of color. Mostly because a lot
of the "PC Culture" zealots are middle class white people who are virtue
signaling and using these far left ideologies to gain social acceptance -
They're literally shooting fish in a barrel when they decide what to say vs.
what they can say AND get 'credit' for.

Speaking your opinion and being called a racist on Twitter by white people is
beyond infuriating when you're a black man who has actually experienced it.
Twitter is a cancer to society, and I really hope this "cancel culture" dies
out soon.

Most times when things like this happen, someone could have easily sent the
person in question a DM, explained why they thought the tweet might have been
badly timed, and that would have been all - No scandal.

But you don't get "credit" for that. You have to pretend to be angry, make a
tweet with some ALL CAPS thrown in, and get someone fired. I hope people find
another way to feel good about themselves soon, because throwing people under
the bus is destroying any hope of free speech in the near future. Sorry about
the long rant.

Hopefully I don't catch any heat for this on HN _shrug_

------
bovermyer
I absolutely do not publicly state my beliefs, or even state them in writing
anywhere that could conceivably be accessed publicly.

This is for two reasons: one, I doubt anyone cares to hear yet another voice
in the cacophony; and two, there is plenty of prior precedent for someone
saying something online and a digital mob descending on them and making their
lives hell. That doesn't even consider government surveillance, which adds a
whole 'nother angle.

So, there's no incentive for me to share, and a strong disincentive.

~~~
froasty
The incentive for you to share your beliefs is that if you will not lead,
someone else, invariably less discerning, less principled, and less honest
will. This used to be considered a fundamental precept of Western civilization
and its legislators, popularly stated as "[t]hose who are too smart to engage
in politics are punished by being governed by those who aren't."

The historiography of this period, if humans remain extant, will discover the
causal link between the rise of New Atheism and the rise of intellectual
cowardice that by necessity emerged shortly after the implicit social norms of
Christianity were intentionally jettisoned.

Being willing to sacrifice, not to inflict violence but to actively _suffer_ ,
for the truth that one witnesses is a fundamental predicate of Western
civilization. Even the Christian heretics of the middle ages, willfully
executed for their idiosyncratic beliefs, viewed this as a sacrosanct duty as
a human being.

If a polity actively consents to the silencing of the individual's ability to
testify to their truth for the sake of Mammon, state persecution, the
possibility of being stoned by a crowd of True Believers, or any other
exercise of temporal power, civilization, that is the ability of a group of
diverse individuals to exist for a future commonweal, is impossible to
maintain.

The honest and earnest among this and past generations have voluntarily
silenced and removed themselves from the possibility of being spiritual and
intellectual leaders. The only result that can come of this abdication of
responsibility is not their own safety but the endangerment of _everyone_
within that society.

If you will not lead, you _will_ be led by those that aren't so fearful, so
future-minded, or scrupulous. If you would pretend to be blind, you _will_ be
led by the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the
ditch.

~~~
meowface
This seems like a conflation of Enlightenment values and fundamental
humanistic values with Christian values, even if they may overlap in some
cases; they may be mutually exclusive in other cases, depending on the sect. I
see no throughline between the growth of any kind of atheism and intellectual
cowardice, apathy, or rejection of relevant social norms. The rise of atheism,
if anything, required considerable moral fortitude and conviction in the face
of ostracization and worse, and this is still the case for many in America,
even if attitudes are shifting.

The cause is the same force that drove McCarthyism and other forms of
tribalistic insanity. Blame humans, not individual human groups or ideologies.
I have no problem with religion, but I strongly disagree with the notion that
society is, as you suggest, necessarily held together by the social norms of a
particular instantiation of organized religion. It's perpetration of the same
ostensibly righteous style of judgment that this article seeks to criticize.

~~~
froasty
Your post is, in all effects, a recapitulation of the precise juncture and
jettison of which I was speaking. That you strongly disagree with my post, all
I can say in response is _e pur si muove_.

~~~
meowface
I agree with your post; just not the theistic spin on it. I think you got the
symptoms right but the cause wrong. Not because I'm anti-theistic, but because
I just don't think it's the binding fabric holding society together and which
society becomes lost without, even if it may have cynically and pragmatically
served such a purpose in more chaotic times of the past.

I believe in social norms for the inherent sake of the norms, rather than due
to doctrine. I jettison no norms - only doctrine. Philosophical systems are
orthogonal to theological ones. If there exist implicit beneficial norms
associated with Christianity, as you say, then I posit their implicitness
implies they can be disentangled from theistic ideology and the case can (and
perhaps should) be made for them outside of such systems.

~~~
froasty
The overwhelming majority of the population is not grey tribe. Yes,
abstracting fundamental social functions onto universal, non-ideological bases
is a Good Idea in theory, but the reality is the majority of people don't
learn Esperanto or participate in the Cult of the Supreme Being. There are
very real switching costs that often exceed the supposed advantages sought out
and the end result often pales in comparison to the original, both in
substance and meaning, and fails accordingly.

If you think another attempt would be successful, that you, or another cadre
of well-intentioned reformers, can successfully inoculate a society with an
abstracted ethical code that mandates returning evil with good, embracing the
martyring of oneself for truth, total pacifism, etc. on a purely logical
basis, by all means go ahead and give it your best shot. Until then, I'm going
to loudly proclaim that Chesterton's fence should be returned to its field.

------
SaberTail
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see if this was done before or after the
pandemic lockdowns started. I've got a hypothesis that the Twitter (etc.) mobs
are getting worse precisely because of the lockdowns.

Locked down, with very little to do, people are desperate to feel like they're
doing something useful. Joining in an online mob feels useful. It makes a
person feel like they're doing good in the world. It gives them the rush of
accomplishing something. It's an illusion, but there's a lot of feedback
(upvotes, faves, retweets, etc.) that makes it feel real to people.

I don't have any great ideas for how to improve it. I've been asking myself
"will this actually do any material good?" before engaging, and I
significantly cut back on social media. But good luck convincing everyone else
to do that, too.

~~~
gnusty_gnurc
> I've got a hypothesis that the Twitter (etc.) mobs are getting worse
> precisely because of the lockdowns.

Any of the nonsense going on lately is pretty much a consequence of the
lockdowns.

People without jobs and tons of time on their hands, and social networks that
amplify _anything_ that crosses the minds of people confined to their house.

It's a recipe for disaster.

And precisely a reason you wouldn't want to embark on a lockdown strategy,
ignoring the questionable efficacy.

~~~
Theory5
That's absolutely not true, lockdowns have been proven to help protect people
and reduce the spread of the virus.

------
helen___keller
I think people are finally starting to understand that public speech in the
21st century and public speech in the 20th century are not the same thing at
all.

Tweeting your opinion in 2020 is analogous to going on national television and
airing your opinion in 1990.

Would you feel comfortable airing a controversial opinion on national
television? Would you feel comfortable that you still have your job and your
reputation after going in front of the nation and saying "I think interracial
marriages should be illegal"? No? Then don't tweet it because that's basically
the same thing.

~~~
cgriswald
Yes, that’s what people would like others to believe. As long as you don’t
tweet obviously racist things, you’ll be fine.

Unfortunately the mob is much more capricious. Read the article for an
example.

~~~
helen___keller
You're trying to examine the morality of the mob. Obviously the mob doesn't
have a consistent and justifiable moral stance; it's a mob.

My point is that when you post online, you're not publically speaking to your
neighbors from the sidewalk. You're broadcasting nationally. Including to an
angry mob.

So no, I wouldn't agree with "As long as you don’t tweet obviously racist
things, you’ll be fine."

I would rather say, if you don't post online, don't have any recordings of
yourself posted online, and otherwise manage to prevent yourself from having
any significant online presence, you'll be fine.

~~~
jules
You're backpedaling. Now you're acting as if you were giving self-preservation
advice in the face of a mob, whereas in your original comment you were
supporting said mob. What _is_ your stance?

~~~
helen___keller
> in your original comment you were supporting said mob

I did no such thing, please re-read my original post

~~~
jules
I see, I misunderstood what you meant by "Would you feel comfortable that you
still have your job". I now see that you probably meant it as "Would you feel
_confident_ that you still have your job". I originally thought you meant
"Would you feel comfortable with a world in which people would still have
their job if ...". My apologies.

~~~
helen___keller
> you probably meant it as "Would you feel confident

Ah yeah that's exactly right. My bad on the wording

------
treeman79
Politics are heading in dangerous direction.

I take hydroxychloroquine to keep my autoimmune disease under control.

It’s not a perfect drug, but it works great.

It’s insane watching people being attacked over a 65 year old drug.

There is the doctor video going around talking it, and people are being banned
or given warnings for sharing it.

Science is being tossed out the window in favor of hysteria. This is something
that is cheap and could save hundreds of thousands of lives.

But because of hatred towards an early supporter, we can’t even have a
discussion on its effectiveness anymore.

Related survey on people afraid to speak.
[https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-
reports/poll-62-ame...](https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-
reports/poll-62-americans-say-they-have-political-views-theyre-afraid-share)

~~~
52-6F-62
As far as I understood, the distaste for the support of the drug in the
context of Covid-19 was that it hasn’t been proven to be the “miracle cure”
some people have touted it to be.

Said touting was causing shortages at pharmacies where people like you who
require the drug were not able to get access to it suddenly because of hordes
of “supporters” buying up entire stocks.

Not because of who pushes it. It’s the consequences of uninformed broadcasting
like calling it a final cure that have people shook.

~~~
treeman79
That’s not what is going on. News broadcasters are denouncing it as dangerous,
and we can’t talk about it. Social media is banning videos by actual doctors.

A drug with a 10-50% success rate will still save a lot of lives.

This drug already saves millions of lives. My life is much better on it then
before. It’s already reached miracle cure status. Question is, will it do it
again.

    
    
        Cases and deaths averted. It is estimated that a cumulative 1.2 billion fewer malaria cases and 6.2 million fewer malaria deaths occurred globally between 2001 and 2015

[https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/200018/9789...](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/200018/9789241565158_eng.pdf?sequence=1)

~~~
notacoward
> News broadcasters are denouncing it as dangerous

It _is_ dangerous. Proper dosage and monitoring are necessary to guard against
risk of QT prolongation and retinopathy. It's possible for it to be true both
that it saves millions of lives and that it's dangerous to take unsupervised.

> A drug with a 10-50% success rate will still save a lot of lives.

There is zero evidence that it has anywhere near that level of effectiveness,
even when combined with zinc and azithromycin for the most favorable
population and conditions. It might have _some_ effect, but touting it as a
miracle cure when other treatments are already known with greater effect and
lower risk is irresponsible.

~~~
ColanR
> dangerous to take unsupervised

That's not what anyone is suggesting, and it seems disingenuous for you to
suggest that it is. The drug is well-known, and it's reasonable to attempt its
use when there's the potential for a large success rate. The people "hoarding"
it are doctors who can get prescriptions for it - and who I imagine know more
about the drug than you or I do.

Based on the Ford study [1], the 10-50% success rate might be a confusion with
the hazard ratio reduction, which was 66%. The actual in-hospital mortality
rates in that study were 20% with hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin vs. 26%
with neither. I'd say a 6 percentage point difference in lives saved is enough
to warrant further investigation.

[1]
[https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/ful...](https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712\(20\)30534-8/fulltext)

~~~
notacoward
> That's not what anyone is suggesting

...and yet that's what people are _doing_.

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/07/teen-w...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/07/teen-
who-died-covid-19-got-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-home/5389870002/)

> The drug is well-known

So are its risks.

> there's the potential for a large success rate

Every treatment has _some_ potential. Funny how there's been a chorus of
"eVerY drUg hAS rIsks" to make HCQ seem unexceptional in that regard (even
though most drugs don't carry disk of _heart problems and blindness_ ) while
clinging to the idea that its potential _is_ exceptional. In the case of HCQ
for COVID-19 we don't need to guess about potential, because there have been
many studies by now and we have empirical evidence of weak effect. It
shouldn't be ignored, but it should be _far_ from the top of anyone's list
either. It's only getting attention at all because of who keeps touting it.

You talk about being disingenuous, but I think the disingenuous behavior in
this thread is the _extreme_ cherry-picking of favorable results while
ignoring less favorable results and risks.

~~~
ColanR
> > That's not what anyone is suggesting

> ...and yet that's what people are doing.

> Her mother, a nurse, and a man identified in the report as her father, a
> physician assistant, gave the girl azithromycin...The report does not state
> if the girl had a prescription for either drug.

You need a better source. There was supervision in that case. Sadly, the girl
was apparently part of the ~75-80% that don't survive COVID-19, even with
azithromycin & hydroxychloroquine.

> So are its risks.

And that means its risks can be addressed and quantified.

> extreme cherry-picking

Two points. 1. A great example of cherry picking is the single instance of
mortality associated with using azithromycin that you gave in your source. 2.
The issue of degree of efficacy is secondary to the fact that it's potential
for efficacy is being hidden and labeled disinformation, when the drug should
be investigated for its potential to save lives.

~~~
notacoward
> You need a better source. There was supervision in that case

You're being disingenuous _again_. Read the article. She was given the drugs
by her parents, who were not authorized to prescribe them or supervise their
use on their own. The outcome is not the point. The point is the _lack of
proper supervision_. The outcome could have been different, and it would
_still be wrong_ for people to be using HCQ other than in a controlled trial
... but that's exactly what hype like yours leads to.

~~~
ColanR
You're deriving way too much from an uninformative article. "Given the drugs
by her parents" doesn't mean they were prescribed by her parents. Did the
article say whether there was no doctor involved?

Also. The girl had an autoimmune disorder, for which the same drugs are
commonly used. Did the article happen to say whether or not she was already on
the drugs?

The article also says _nothing_ about whether the drugs had anything to do
with her demise. It sure does imply that, though.

This is a cherry picked article.

------
vwcx
I’ve often wondered about the ‘herd immunity’ that forms as a result of
widespread cancel culture.

Initially I assumed that prolific canceling would lead to a general societal
understanding of the unsustainability of the cultural. The idea that in
Presidential elections in 2059, every candidate would have so much ‘dirt’
against them that it might level the field a bit.

But as this article suggests, another alternative might just be a deadly-to-
democracy silence.

~~~
luckylion
All experiments with ideologically driven cancel-culture we've had in the time
since WW2 point to silence being the answer. You might be able to open up in a
very private setting, but East Germany showed enough evidence that there will
be spies even in your closest circle who will report on you.

If you need to tell somebody how you really feel, write a letter to yourself
and then burn it. Otherwise, just smile, repeat the party line, and carry on.

~~~
teachrdan
Are you actually comparing "cancel culture" to being imprisoned by the Stasi?
The most powerful person in the country regularly tweets opinions that cancel
culture supposedly makes impossible to say.

There are those who make cancel culture out to be an all-powerful entity. But
the evidence suggests it's just a right wing boogie man in all but the most
extreme cases. And sometimes not even then!

------
auganov
What many are missing is our ability to have a voice has also grown
tremendously over the years with social media. Just over a decade ago far
fewer people could get to a point where their speech could be
censored/sanctioned.

It's not necessarily that you could say more back in the day, but the fact
that fewer people would hear it.

------
ckdarby
David Shor probably got fired because they did not have a disclaimer on their
account expressing these are just their opinions.

I once had an employer come after me when I posted a Medium article because of
this. Medium appends your bio at the bottom which said, "Working at X, top 25
largest bandwidth consumer."

Employer argued that I was representing the company's opinion and had breached
a clause in my employer contract.

~~~
amvalo
He does have the disclaimer

~~~
ckdarby
Did he have that disclaimer before and did he have the disclaimer on all
places he might have posted or shared the link from?

Easy example would have been Linkedin if it was shared there, his title
probably would have said he worked there but not had a disclaimer description
on his Linkedin profile.

------
roenxi
The partisan split here is fascinating. This implies that a possible situation
we are in is that _most_ Democrats aren't saying what they think.

That bodes badly for them long-term. Speaking practically, that seems like a
nasty defect in their ability to communicate an honest vision.

Hopefully the things they can't saying are only on unimportant issues. I
suspect that is not the case though.

~~~
insickness
46% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans said they can't say what they think.

~~~
maxk42
That was in 2017. The 2020 numbers are 52% and 77% respectively.

------
DaniloDias
I’m not nervous. I’m saddened by the lack of courage, lack of independent
thought and this common belief that it is healthy and worthwhile to try and
control how other people perceive you.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
There's a perceptible slide towards culture telling people they need to worry
more and more about extrinsic measures of value (e.g. what others think) in
lieu of teaching them how to assess things for their intrinsic values, and
weigh those along with external perceptions. It's no wonder we can feel like
we have little agency at times: we've used outside sources for validation
instead of building resilience.

I used to be big into IRC, or in smaller channels. Eventually I noticed a
certain persona was overrepresented on IRC: a sort of cynical, sarcastic type
that could probably use a bit less time on IRC, but couldn't muster up the
will to change.

I see the same thing with social media, and, worse, we've normalized the
addictive behavior, and made it easier to stay connected away from computers.

I don't want to be that person.

------
paul7986
The US news media (left, right and upside down) is sensationalized trash.
Fueling hate (stereotypes), outrage and inducing fear..all for profit!

I've tuned it all out minus some pertinent local news.

------
hyfgfh
I just express my option with a few people that I know will criticize me, but
at the same time wont attack me.

------
BooneJS
My village’s Facebook page offers a counter-example to this article. When it
comes to wearing masks or virtual/in-person school, there’s no amount of
vitriol the most vocal won’t say.

------
tenebrisalietum
Principles, such as "free market" and "free speech" in strictest forms, are
immaterial below a certain economic threshold. Survival itself, or relief from
the drudgery of survival becomes paramount.

A homeless person living on the street already has just about the freest
speech you could want in the freest market for ideas possible--his economic
situation can't really be altered further by anything he says politically.
Does anyone want to live like that?

Principles are going to take a back seat while housing costs and a bunch of
other things are the way they are.

~~~
RhysU
A homeless person on the street gets the best value for his/her minimal
dollars when buying goods produced by a free market.

A homeless person living on the street can rant about whatever government
conspiracy he/she chooses without being imprisoned because of free speech.

These rights do matter, even to those with practically nothing.

~~~
tenebrisalietum
Let's say the homeless person was presented with this deal:

"You can have free housing, but you can't rant about government conspiracies.
If you do, you get imprisoned."

I'd say most homeless people would take the deal. It would be interesting to
actually conduct a study and find this out, though.

~~~
RhysU
Anytime the government wants to void the deal all they have to do is to accuse
the person of ranting. It is an ephemeral offer.

------
johnny22
do the comments on these posts every go anywhere? I might be wrong, but it
seems like folks just start from zero every time.

I have my own views on the subject, but am willing to change my mind. The
arguments however don't seem to be compelling. It'd be nice if we could stop
starting from scratch as if this was the first time the subject was discussed.

~~~
krapp
No. Most of these threads wind up being so similar you could write a bot to
fill them out.

------
neonate
[https://archive.is/jm0qr](https://archive.is/jm0qr)

------
zzzeek
So there are no barriers to free speech, no laws to be enforced against people
saying pretty much anything, but polling indicates people "feel" they "cannot"
express their true beliefs.

I'm pretty sure the first amendment has nothing to say about feelings.

~~~
titzer
The issue seems more complicated than just the first amendment, which only
proscribes the restrictions of your free speech. In general I think the
underlying dynamic is that culture itself has become a hostile battleground
and expressing an opinion is likely to get people riled up and breathing down
your neck. In short, people are flat-out shitty to each other these days. It
sucks. No one wants to speak up in that environment.

But even then I'd challenge your first couple of statements. There are whole
lot of consequences for defying the political leadership these days,
especially when you bring evidence that they might have committed crimes. It's
a nightmare right now.

~~~
zzzeek
For far too many, people have been "flat out shitty" to them for literally
hundreds of years, with treatment vastly worse than losing your Twitter
followers. Enslavement, lynchings, enforced segregation, decades of murder at
the hands of unaccountable law enforcement, a multi billion dollar industry
designed to industrialize their incarceration to the highest level in the
world...and as parts of society begin to really try to voice this problem more
substantially than ever before, other people who have implicitly benefitted
from their system "feel" a little bit awkward that this is all very
bewildering to them, and that they in fact are being called out for ignoring a
vast system of human rights abuses that's been taking place right under their
noses. How on earth can this situation be improved _without_ these people
"feeling" a little bit uncomfortable?

------
notmyfriend
The most important thing to take away from this is that It's likely all
political polls are complete garbage due to this.

------
c7________-
If you express conservative viewpoints then people will physically assault
you. Andy Ngo has been physically assaulted multiple times and recently was
brazenly lased in the eyes. Liberal activists have taken to lasing the eyes of
their political opponents as well as federal officers standing in front of a
federal courthouse. These lasers will cause eye damage simply by looking at
their spot on a wall. The fact that people in general are not upset by this
baffles me.

Personally, after the lasing started, I totally lost any desire to publicly
convey any kind of even positive sentiment for conservative or even moderate
ideas. That’s how toxic it has become: moderates are now villainized by at
least a large chunk of the left.

~~~
testfluke
Good! Andy Ngo is human scum; so are the agents in Portland and so are all
conservatives in the broadest sense. I’m excited by where this is going.

~~~
c7________-
What did he do? Oh and congratulations, you won. You literally terrorized
people into silence.

~~~
testfluke2
His whole shtick is to drum up violence against people on the left. Turnabout
is fair play. And thank you, it is unironically really satisfying.

~~~
c7________-
I’m not going to rebut. But my point could not have been proven any more
thoroughly... I even wonder if you are a conservative pretending to be a
liberal just to try and help my comment...

~~~
turnsnake55
No, and I’m not a liberal either. I’m more anti-conservative than anything
else. Violence is all they understand, so let them have it. More broadly I can
see that the divide in this country won’t be healed by anything but violence.
It’s not at all clear who wins, but what is clear is we cannot come together
until we get this out of our system.

Your point was some set of facts. My rebuttal is: so what?

~~~
dang
We've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to do ideological
flamewar on HN. It's against the site rules:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

------
blue52
And it's a damn shame. Dangerous as well.

------
throwaway29102
It’s almost as if Americans have realized that speech, like all other actions,
has consequences.

~~~
perl4ever
I'm not sure what side you're on, but the US wouldn't be what it is but for
founders who manipulated public opinion by publishing under a pseudonym about
their vision of an ideal government. While owning slaves.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers)

~~~
throwaway29102
I'm an arsonist, not a partisan.

------
scottlocklin
It's pretty obvious America is heading towards some sort of filthy low level
civil war like 1973-1976 in Argentina[0]. For those of you unfamiliar with
this period of time: this was the three years preceding Operation Condor and
the Junta throwing people out of helicopters. A shitty period of chaos where
opposing political groupings kidnapped, assassinated and otherwise destroyed
each other in the streets.

Cancel culture is just one aspect of it. Riots, mass shootings (hey, anyone
remember Stephen Paddock shooting 500 people in Vegas? kinda reminds me of the
mass murder[1] of the Montoneros at the Peron rally[2] except worse, and with
a media blackout), tent cities, complete distrust of the mass media, political
polarization over .... covid treatment and mitigation, clownish conspiracy
theories touted on the mass media, actual conspiracies (dude totally didn't
kill himself) in plain sight, people baying for blood on social media, and
threatening to murder their political enemies. The classical liberal ideal of
a marketplace of ideas and of coexistance with political rivals is dead and
gone, and the virtues needed to sustain it basically don't exist in the
population under the age of 40; aka the people who fight in violent civil
wars.

At some point, someone's going to go apeshit and go after the leader of the
mob that canceled him. I'd say the main thing preventing it now is companies
actually pay out decent settlements for firing people for political statements
-leftovers from when labor unions had juice; remember labor protections,
alleged lefties?

The whole thing is idiotic and sad, and America will end up the totalitarian
shit hole it seems to want to be. Junta Argentina without the nice climate and
good looking people.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n#Third_term_(19...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n#Third_term_\(1973%E2%80%931974\))

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezeiza_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezeiza_massacre)

[2][https://www.britannica.com/topic/Montonero](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Montonero)

~~~
luckylion
> At some point, someone's going to go apeshit and go after the leader of the
> mob that canceled him.

I believe it's a testament for how anti-violence everyone in our societies
are. People being publicly hunted down in witch trials rather kill themselves
than turn on those who seek to destroy them.

I'm similarly surprised that all those pyramid scheme people live peacefully
after their schemes blow up and thousands or millions are left holding the
bag, while they made off with millions and might possibly face a year or three
in a luxurious prison.

When you consider how many people wish them death online and nothing happens,
death threats to random Twitter users can probably be ignored in general: if
people aren't going after those that defrauded them and took their life
savings, they're not going to come after you because you disagree on politics.

