Not acting on a threat does not make it any less of a threat. Look I honestly read it as a threat, I think it's a reasonable interpretation but I've mentioned elsewhere that I concede I could be wrong about it's intent. I guess that's the thing about intent, especially via text, but again, reasonable interpretation.
I know the guy was rude, but my response was need, the flags were legit. I don't defend the content of his speech, I never did. But I don't dismiss rude people on the basis of their rudeness. The insistence of all parties to thrash this issue out is all the more reason to make the central points clear.
Flagging is fine. Disagreements are fine. Threats should be taken seriously (and confirmed obviously!). There is no platform consensus on flagging and no one can claim to "own" it.
There isn't consensus, because flaggots exist. Her cautions to @americaurusrex are spot on, because if he did that to @berniesanders, he'd end up like @skeptic - or like @berniesanders himself, after @dan was through with him, and you know it.
She didn't threaten him, she warned him of very real dangers to his account.
Yea maybe I'd take that point of the danger of ending up like @skeptic (though, he's nasty af) if it wasn't couched in a rejection of the flags because of the content, not some objective advice.
I don’t think we need to get too bogged down with whether or not people demanding I remove my flags are being threatening or not.
For one thing, they have every right to threaten to flag me. I’m a big boy, I can take it. I think the broader point is that expending all this energy to convince me to remove flags, because my reasons don’t mesh with your vision of the platform, and making your vision of the platform out to be some requirement I have to follow, is not in good taste. Just like I’m sure you find my flags in poor taste.
I didn’t really take the response to my flags as friendly advice, but I’m happy to entertain the idea that that’s the spirit with which it was intended.