You're right, it is. But who has the power to do that? It's not usually the people who would benefit from it; violence is the last resort of people whose other forms of control over their own lives have been stripped from them.
A rat backed into a corner lashes out in desperation. You might give the alternative solution to simply move its pursuer, but that only serves to show that you don't understand how the rat has no such power.
My country was invaded by terrorists on September 11th, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. We waged war on the entire region the terrorists came from, eventually killing the leader of the group, and nothing changed. All our bombing did nothing, all our sacrifices of innocent people were for naught.
Amazingly, killing a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the terrorists that attacked your country is a bad move, and only serves to create more terrorists as people watch their loved ones die by your hand and grow to hate you.
If your takeaway from America's terrible actions post-9/11 is that we should've been even more brutal and wiped out the entire mostly-innocent population of the middle east, you've got the wrong takeaway.
Well, lets see, I make my company about 3 orders of magnitude more money than they pay me every year, so I suppose if my kids gather 1000 pieces of candy, I'll give one back to them as payment.
Hmm... Man seemingly dies, goes into a small space with hard walls, comes back a little while later with the ability to fly... Is Jesus mothman?
Ah, that must be how a free book became a "bestseller."
I was thinking about it, but I can only imagine the amount of spam mail I'd get if I did.
It's not meant to make them look like the good guy, it's meant to make them look like the guy who's willing to "do what it takes to end the woke agenda." The way you get a bunch of people to support evil isn't by convincing them it's good, but by convincing them it's necessary.
There's no reason to try any harder than this. Most people who will see this tweet won't look at the handle or the replies - they're read the tweet, then move on. And if they see enough of these tweets, they may just internalize the notion that unions aren't worth it. It's better for Amazon to make more tweets than it is for them to make better tweets. And it's not like they're going to see any repercussions for trying to maliciously influence their employees.
Again, Americans aren't America. It's criticizing the actions of the governmental body, not your average person who has no more control over that government than any of his 300,000,000+ constituents. And honestly, while there are many bigger issues on the table, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the president who has shown complete disdain for the disabled decided to go after their rights as well. But for now there's bigger fish to fry.
I honestly think they believe "killing in the name of" is telling them to kill in the name of.
Open and shut against a regular person, sure, but if we've learned anything in the last 8 years, it's that government officials who spread misinformation won't see repercussions for a long time, if ever.
I do too - it's a gender-neutral name. He just pictured a girl, and didn't even think that he might be wrong.