Rob Chapman gets death threats?

gibsongretschfan

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

my point being that there are death threats and then there are death threats- getting upset by a DM off of a random troll account saying they are going to kill you cause you’re a bellend then using it to play victim (coughLabourMP’scough) is peak boomer behaviour 

A Labour MP was actually murdered.

Yes... and her murderer never sent her death threats on the internet beforehand 

What an incredibly, unbelievably dumb comment. 

The percentage of anonymous or semi-anonymous online death-threats, particularly aimed at public figures, that actually come to fruition or are even followed by any real life consequences is so minuscule that the subject barely deserves recognition 

However, online threats between gangs, like those involved in the recent surge in London knife violence is another matter

I’m sorry that was difficult for you to contextualise but I hope this further explanation helps somewhat

gibsongretschfan

gringopig said:

gibsongretschfan said:

Death threats seem to be in fashion these days. I’m feeling a bit left out to be honest. Although I do threaten my kids lives on a daily basis

my point being that there are death threats and then there are death threats- getting upset by a DM off of a random troll account saying they are going to kill you cause you’re a bellend then using it to play victim (coughLabourMP’scough) is peak boomer behaviour 

This is YouTube, not 70’s Belfast

Peak boomer behaviour!

My kids taught me that one, I was actually really proud of myself that I managed to use it somewhere 

Jonathanthomas83

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

my point being that there are death threats and then there are death threats- getting upset by a DM off of a random troll account saying they are going to kill you cause you’re a bellend then using it to play victim (coughLabourMP’scough) is peak boomer behaviour 

A Labour MP was actually murdered.

Yes... and her murderer never sent her death threats on the internet beforehand 

What an incredibly, unbelievably dumb comment. 

The percentage of anonymous or semi-anonymous online death-threats, particularly aimed at public figures, that actually come to fruition or are even followed by any real life consequences is so minuscule that the subject barely deserves recognition 

However, online threats between gangs, like those involved in the recent surge in London knife violence is another matter

I’m sorry that was difficult for you to contextualise but I hope this further explanation helps somewhat

Normalising it and trivialising it in that way will never help matters though. It's a serious issue no matter how large or small.

Henrytwang

Fuengi said:

It's really quite simple, on fact it couldn't be easier - if you don't like Rob, don't watch his videos! 

Anything else is jealousy. 

I’ll go along with that. I find the Andertons videos irritating both with and without him and his Chapman guitars pretty uninspiring, so I just avoid him. Threatening to kill him is a bit extreme to say the least.

ten77guitar

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

my point being that there are death threats and then there are death threats- getting upset by a DM off of a random troll account saying they are going to kill you cause you’re a bellend then using it to play victim (coughLabourMP’scough) is peak boomer behaviour 

A Labour MP was actually murdered.

Yes... and her murderer never sent her death threats on the internet beforehand 

What an incredibly, unbelievably dumb comment. 

The percentage of anonymous or semi-anonymous online death-threats, particularly aimed at public figures, that actually come to fruition or are even followed by any real life consequences is so minuscule that the subject barely deserves recognition 

However, online threats between gangs, like those involved in the recent surge in London knife violence is another matter

I’m sorry that was difficult for you to contextualise but I hope this further explanation helps somewhat

For one thing, people who send death threats to MPs don’t tend to use their real names. So you don’t know for certain whether the murderer sent any threats to Jo Cox beforehand.

Secondly, even if he didn’t send any, if you’re a Labour MP in the months following the murder and you receive a death threat would you really be comforted by the fact that Jo’s murderer didn’t send any before murdering her?

As I said, just an unbelievably stupid comment.

pintspiller

I am jealous of people who appear successful despite having no more talent than I have. 

Doesn't mean I want to shoot them down. I spend my time watching YouTube and reading social media and internet forums to do anything like shoot them down or create my own online career.

gibsongretschfan

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

my point being that there are death threats and then there are death threats- getting upset by a DM off of a random troll account saying they are going to kill you cause you’re a bellend then using it to play victim (coughLabourMP’scough) is peak boomer behaviour 

A Labour MP was actually murdered.

Yes... and her murderer never sent her death threats on the internet beforehand 

What an incredibly, unbelievably dumb comment. 

The percentage of anonymous or semi-anonymous online death-threats, particularly aimed at public figures, that actually come to fruition or are even followed by any real life consequences is so minuscule that the subject barely deserves recognition 

However, online threats between gangs, like those involved in the recent surge in London knife violence is another matter

I’m sorry that was difficult for you to contextualise but I hope this further explanation helps somewhat

For one thing, people who send death threats to MPs don’t tend to use their real names. So you don’t know for certain whether the murderer sent any threats to Jo Cox beforehand.

Secondly, even if he didn’t send any, if you’re a Labour MP in the months following the murder and you receive a death threat would you really be comforted by the fact that Jo’s murderer didn’t send any before murdering her?

As I said, just an unbelievably stupid comment.

Yes we do know that he never sent her death threats because he was investigated by counter terrorism police as a terrorist and they never found any evidence of this. His electronic communications would of been a high priority for any investigation.

Your second point is a borderline straw man argument 

ten77guitar

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

my point being that there are death threats and then there are death threats- getting upset by a DM off of a random troll account saying they are going to kill you cause you’re a bellend then using it to play victim (coughLabourMP’scough) is peak boomer behaviour 

A Labour MP was actually murdered.

Yes... and her murderer never sent her death threats on the internet beforehand 

What an incredibly, unbelievably dumb comment. 

The percentage of anonymous or semi-anonymous online death-threats, particularly aimed at public figures, that actually come to fruition or are even followed by any real life consequences is so minuscule that the subject barely deserves recognition 

However, online threats between gangs, like those involved in the recent surge in London knife violence is another matter

I’m sorry that was difficult for you to contextualise but I hope this further explanation helps somewhat

For one thing, people who send death threats to MPs don’t tend to use their real names. So you don’t know for certain whether the murderer sent any threats to Jo Cox beforehand.

Secondly, even if he didn’t send any, if you’re a Labour MP in the months following the murder and you receive a death threat would you really be comforted by the fact that Jo’s murderer didn’t send any before murdering her?

As I said, just an unbelievably stupid comment.

Yes we do know that he never sent her death threats because he was investigated by counter terrorism police as a terrorist and they never found any evidence of this. His electronic communications would of been a high priority for any investigation.

Your second point is a borderline straw man argument 

So the fact they didn’t find any evidence proves he never sent any? Good logic.

Your second point deserves no response other than I assume you’re conceding the point.

You’re clutching at straws. Be the bigger person and admit you’re talking crap.

gibsongretschfan

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

my point being that there are death threats and then there are death threats- getting upset by a DM off of a random troll account saying they are going to kill you cause you’re a bellend then using it to play victim (coughLabourMP’scough) is peak boomer behaviour 

A Labour MP was actually murdered.

Yes... and her murderer never sent her death threats on the internet beforehand 

What an incredibly, unbelievably dumb comment. 

The percentage of anonymous or semi-anonymous online death-threats, particularly aimed at public figures, that actually come to fruition or are even followed by any real life consequences is so minuscule that the subject barely deserves recognition 

However, online threats between gangs, like those involved in the recent surge in London knife violence is another matter

I’m sorry that was difficult for you to contextualise but I hope this further explanation helps somewhat

For one thing, people who send death threats to MPs don’t tend to use their real names. So you don’t know for certain whether the murderer sent any threats to Jo Cox beforehand.

Secondly, even if he didn’t send any, if you’re a Labour MP in the months following the murder and you receive a death threat would you really be comforted by the fact that Jo’s murderer didn’t send any before murdering her?

As I said, just an unbelievably stupid comment.

Yes we do know that he never sent her death threats because he was investigated by counter terrorism police as a terrorist and they never found any evidence of this. His electronic communications would of been a high priority for any investigation.

Your second point is a borderline straw man argument 

So the fact they didn’t find any evidence proves he never sent any? Good logic.

Your second point deserves no response other than I assume you’re conceding the point.

You’re clutching at straws. Be the bigger person and admit you’re talking crap.

Yes, I would suggest that if counter terrorism police investigating the most high profile political murder of a generation didn’t find any death threats that it would high unlikely there were any

I can’t concede a counter to a point I’ve never made- Hence why I called it a straw man

ten77guitar

gibsongretschfan said:

Yes, I would suggest that if counter terrorism police investigating the most high profile political murder of a generation didn’t find any death threats that it would high unlikely there were any

I can’t concede a counter to a point I’ve never made- Hence why I called it a straw man

Okay I’ll concede your first point - let’s assume none were made.

Your argument, if I’m not mistaken, is that Labour MPs used death threats against them for political gain. You’re implying that the death threats weren’t credible so they should have just ignored them. Correct?

I’m saying the fact that one of their colleagues was recently murdered by someone with links to the far right means that they should take every threat against them seriously. How are they to know which ones are credible or not? If the threats weren’t serious the police wouldn’t be arresting people and locking them up.

Also, it wasn’t just Labour MPs complaining about the harassment they get on a daily basis. It happens to MPs from all parties.

prlgmnr

We all knew this thread was going to go off the rails sooner rather than later, but I don't think anyone expected it to veer in this direction first.

ten77guitar

prlgmnr said:

We all knew this thread was going to go off the rails sooner rather than later, but I don't think anyone expected it to veer in this direction first.

Unfortunately it’s what happens on the internet when someone makes a ridiculous argument then has to clutch at straws in an attempt to show they’re right. I shouldn’t have risen to it.

gibsongretschfan

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

Yes, I would suggest that if counter terrorism police investigating the most high profile political murder of a generation didn’t find any death threats that it would high unlikely there were any

I can’t concede a counter to a point I’ve never made- Hence why I called it a straw man

Okay I’ll concede your first point - let’s assume none were made.

Your argument, if I’m not mistaken, is that Labour MPs used death threats against them for political gain. You’re implying that the death threats weren’t credible so they should have just ignored them. Correct?

I’m saying the fact that one of their colleagues was recently murdered by someone with links to the far right means that they should take every threat against them seriously. How are they to know which ones are credible or not? If the threats weren’t serious the police wouldn’t be arresting people and locking them up.

Also, it wasn’t just Labour MPs complaining about the harassment they get on a daily basis. It happens to MPs from all parties.

My point was that there seems to be a large swathe of public persons using benign online threats (the statistics bear out this benignity) which are then blown out of proportion and used as a platform that performs a variety of functions such as to deflect criticism or to use as social currency when attempting to achieve  moral superiority such as with my example of using the Labour party’s recent behaviour in the House of Commons


Ps. I don’t have any political preference and was only using the Labour party’s recent behaviour as an example of what I believe to be the wrong way to deal with online threats. 

TINMAN82

In his (fairly ill advised) video response, Levi Clay mentions one of the threats was his comment to “go die”. A stupid, immature comment but not an actual death threat as such. Assume there may have been other threats though. It’s all very silly.

ten77guitar

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

Yes, I would suggest that if counter terrorism police investigating the most high profile political murder of a generation didn’t find any death threats that it would high unlikely there were any

I can’t concede a counter to a point I’ve never made- Hence why I called it a straw man

Okay I’ll concede your first point - let’s assume none were made.

Your argument, if I’m not mistaken, is that Labour MPs used death threats against them for political gain. You’re implying that the death threats weren’t credible so they should have just ignored them. Correct?

I’m saying the fact that one of their colleagues was recently murdered by someone with links to the far right means that they should take every threat against them seriously. How are they to know which ones are credible or not? If the threats weren’t serious the police wouldn’t be arresting people and locking them up.

Also, it wasn’t just Labour MPs complaining about the harassment they get on a daily basis. It happens to MPs from all parties.

My point was that there seems to be a large swathe of public persons using benign online threats (the statistics bear out this benignity) which are then blown out of proportion and used as a platform that performs a variety of functions such as to deflect criticism or to use as social currency when attempting to achieve  moral superiority such as with my example of using the Labour party’s recent behaviour in the House of Commons


Ps. I don’t have any political preference and was only using the Labour party’s recent behaviour as an example of what I believe to be the wrong way to deal with online threats. 

I understand your point. You’re just wrong. Sorry.

MPs are guilty of many things and they should be held to account for what they do and say. They should accept the job will involve harsh criticism, scrutiny of every aspect of their lives, getting the piss taken out of them etc. It’s what comes with the power and responsibility they have.

What they shouldn’t have to face are threats of violence and intimidation. Ever. 

The threats are credible because there are people out there who actually do want to kill them. I doubt the same is true of Rob Chapman.

Thats the last thing I’m saying about it.

Grangousier

Benign threats?

soma1975

I mean, sending someone a DM with a death threat should absolutely be taken seriously. 

Whatever one's politics are there can surely be no dispute that there has been a certain normalising of extreme behaviours over the last decade or so and attitudes regarding sexuality, ethnicity, religion, gender that would have gotten you in serious trouble in the past now seem to be standard fare for our media and our Prime Minister. Gary Neville alluded to this recently about the issue of racism in football. If stuff seems sanctioned from the masses or from the top it filters down. 

Speaking to a friend whose son recently tried to kill himself - a kid who has had no zero personal trauma past the difficulties of finding your way as a sensitive young soul in 2019 - he discovered a huge community of people online, tens of thousands of them, all basically strangers, that were telling his son he was absolutely right to feel the way he did and that suicide was a very good solution to his ills. That 'community' of arseholes nearly lost my friend his son because they lent credence to the confused feelings of a of a kid who felt a bit lost.

Likewise, if you don't challenge and shoot down and take a stance against people making death threats, wishing women in the public eye get sexually assaulted or worse, then you normalise that behaviour and all it takes is a little push for someone to act on things and take it to its logical (for them) conclusion. 

sticker

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

Yes, I would suggest that if counter terrorism police investigating the most high profile political murder of a generation didn’t find any death threats that it would high unlikely there were any

I can’t concede a counter to a point I’ve never made- Hence why I called it a straw man

Okay I’ll concede your first point - let’s assume none were made.

Your argument, if I’m not mistaken, is that Labour MPs used death threats against them for political gain. You’re implying that the death threats weren’t credible so they should have just ignored them. Correct?

I’m saying the fact that one of their colleagues was recently murdered by someone with links to the far right means that they should take every threat against them seriously. How are they to know which ones are credible or not? If the threats weren’t serious the police wouldn’t be arresting people and locking them up.

Also, it wasn’t just Labour MPs complaining about the harassment they get on a daily basis. It happens to MPs from all parties.

My point was that there seems to be a large swathe of public persons using benign online threats (the statistics bear out this benignity) which are then blown out of proportion and used as a platform that performs a variety of functions such as to deflect criticism or to use as social currency when attempting to achieve  moral superiority such as with my example of using the Labour party’s recent behaviour in the House of Commons


Ps. I don’t have any political preference and was only using the Labour party’s recent behaviour as an example of what I believe to be the wrong way to deal with online threats. 

Your use of the word Benign is interesting... do you think that only death threats that are followed up with violence/ attempted murder are effective? Because I can tell you the anxiety and fear that even the most ‘benign’ threat can cause can be life changing . If a threat causes you 1 sleepless night , to take a different way home , install a ‘ring’ doorbell or change anything about you usual daily routine then it’s not benign... it’s been effective. 

digitalscream

sticker said:

Your use of the word Benign is interesting... do you think that only death threats that are followed up with violence/ attempted murder are effective? Because I can tell you the anxiety and fear that even the most ‘benign’ threat can cause can be life changing . If a threat causes you 1 sleepless night , to take a different way home , install a ‘ring’ doorbell or change anything about you usual daily routine then it’s not benign... it’s been effective. 

Precisely this. You can't know whether threats are "benign" or not until it's almost too late to do anything about it; these things escalate incredibly quickly.

That's what happened to me - from a certain character on here. It started off with threats of violence, then death threats, then he went to the police saying that I had threatened him, then he started stalking my wife and daughter online trying to break up our family by providing "evidence" that I was having an affair...thankfully, he was dumb as shit and it was all pretty transparent, but you never really know, do you?

Fast forward a few years, and a luthier - who was pretty well-respected up to that point - threatens to be "over like a shot" to my house, having found my address.

These are both direct threats of action. Nothing physical happened in either case, but were they both benign? There was both malice and intent to intimidate both times.

TimmyO

digitalscream said:

The threats to Rob have been happening for years - I remember him talking about it (privately) back as far as 2010-ish.

As for this KDH fella...he's largely seems to be trying to make a name for himself by cherry-picking facts to twist what actually happened while removing context which - as far as I can see - completely undoes most of his arguments, both against Rob and Glenn (I haven't watched any more of his videos).

The stupid thing is...there are a few legitimate criticisms of CG and associated stuff that might actually have gained some traction, but not a single one of them appeared in the video. Why? Because this guy's basing everything on rumour and innuendo, and doesn't actually know anything. It's the kind of diss video that goes on all the time in other parts of YouTube-land (most notably in the fashion and gaming sectors), and it's a fucking shame that some moron is trying to bring it to the musical side too.

Agree with this - the style.of YouTube channel that rides the coat tails of successful content, and does so by pulling it apart - just lowest common denominator stuff. At least by posting a response (rather than ignoring) Rob gets a few quid of revenue from its views.