you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

True.

Then again, the paper one would've been pretty localised (there's a limit to how many pieces of paper you can put through letterboxes), whereas there's no reason to think the email one would've gone to anything less than everyone in the database.

Which is worse? Few people × very threatening, or many people × less threatening? I think the answer here's obvious: there is at yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

When posted on the internet, that photo of the physical piece of paper with a staple torn out of it does psychological wonders though.

It doesn't have to be sent to your personal inbox where you can dismiss it as spam. You just have to see it, and think damn.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hmm… But wouldn't photos of the paper make people think “we can't let them threaten us” and vote for the threatened-against? So you've got a localised prevention but a national boon… this is making my head hurt. Too much to think about.